Notice of the ordinary meeting of

Nelson City Council

Te Kaunihera o Whakatū

Date:		Thursday 13 August 2020
Time:		9.00a.m.
Location:		Council Chamber
			Civic House
			110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson

Agenda

Rārangi take

Mayor               Her Worship the Mayor Rachel Reese

Deputy Mayor  Cr Judene Edgar

Members          Cr Yvonne Bowater

                         Cr Trudie Brand

                         Cr Mel Courtney

                         Cr Kate Fulton

Cr Matt Lawrey

Cr Brian McGurk

Cr Gaile Noonan

                         Cr Rohan O’Neill-Stevens

                         Cr Pete Rainey

                         Cr Rachel Sanson

                         Cr Tim Skinner

Quorum          7                                                     Pat Dougherty                                                                                             Chief Executive Officer

Nelson City Council Disclaimer

Please note that the contents of these Council and Committee agendas have yet to be considered by Council and officer recommendations may be altered or changed by the Council in the process of making the formal Council decision. For enquiries call (03) 5460436.


Council Values

Following are the values agreed during the 2016 – 2019 term:

A. Whakautetanga: respect

B. Kōrero Pono: integrity

C. Māiatanga: courage

D. Whakamanatanga: effectiveness

E. Whakamōwaitanga: humility

F. Kaitiakitanga: stewardship

G. Manaakitanga: generosity of spirit


 

N-logotype-black-wideNelson City Council

13 August 2020

 

 

Page No.

Karakia Timatanga

1.       Apologies

Nil

2.       Confirmation of Order of Business

3.       Interests

3.1       Updates to the Interests Register

3.2       Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4.       Public Forum

4.1       Save the Maitai Campaign - proposed re-zoning of Kaka Valley to allow a residential subdivision

4.2       Hospitality New Zealand - Airbnb's

5.       Confirmation of Minutes

5.1       25 June 2020                                                                         11 - 27

Document number M10966

Recommendation

That the Council

1.     Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 25 June 2020, as a true and correct record.

5.2       30 June 2020                                                                         28 - 43

Document number M11978


 

Recommendation

That the Council

1.     Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 30 June 2020, as a true and correct record.

5.3       Extraordinary Meeting - 9 July 2020                                       44 - 63

Document number M11997

Recommendation

That the Council

1.     Confirms the minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Council, held on 9 July 2020, as a true and correct record.

     

6.       Recommendations from Committees                  

6.1     Community Services Committee - 30 July 2020

6.1.1    Stoke Memorial Hall Strengthening

Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council

1.     Approves the total allocation of $1.2M in 2020/21 in capital expenditure for seismic strengthening the Stoke Memorial Hall to 67% of the New Building Standard (Importance Level 3), with the project to commence in 2020/21, subject to the success of the Provincial Growth Fund application, as set out in the table below;

Capex

Comment

2020/21

$120,000

Existing

$458,000

Brought forward from 2024/25

$500,000

Potential Provincial Growth Fund (to be confirmed)

$120,000

Unbudgeted funding

$1.2M

Total 2020/21

and

2.     Agrees that, if the Provincial Growth Fund application for strengthening the Stoke Memorial Hall is unsuccessful, Council will still proceed with the design work for the project, with physical works timing to be confirmed in the Long Term Plan 2021-31.

 

7.       Mayor's Report                                        64 - 110

Document number R18196

Recommendation

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Mayor's Report (R18196) and its attachment (A2430907); and

2.     Provides guidance to the Mayor on Councillors’ support for the proposed change to Local Government New Zealand Constitution rule F15 to limit the President’s term of office to two terms.

3.     Provides guidance to the Mayor on Councillors’ support for the proposed remits to the Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting 2020, as discussed.

8.       Council Emission Reduction Targets    111 - 123

Document number R17034

Recommendation

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Council Emission Reduction Targets (R17034); and

2.     Agrees that Nelson City Council adopts targets for Council’s own greenhouse gas emissions reductions that are in line with the Government targets (i.e., all GHGs other than biogenic methane achieve net zero emissions by 2050); and

3.     Agrees that work is undertaken to develop specific emission reduction projects for inclusion in the Long Term Plan 2021-31, along with development of a comprehensive Council “Emissions Reduction Action Plan” in line with timeframes to produce the upcoming Long Term Plan; and

4.     Notes that work to set targets and reduce emissions in the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit is critical to address Council’s entire emissions profile and that substantial work is already underway in the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit to measure and reduce emissions.

9.       Three Waters Programme Investment Package                                                 124 - 174

Document number R19214

Recommendation

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Three Waters Programme Investment Package (R19214) and its attachments (A2436659, A2436658, A2436660, A2436656 and A2436662); and

2.     Authorises the Mayor and Chief Executive sign the Memorandum of Understanding at Attachment One (A2436659) and Funding Agreement at Attachment Two (A2436658); and

3.     Agrees to nominate the Mayor and Chief Executive as the primary point of communication for the purposes of the Memorandum of Understanding and reform programme – as referred to on page 6 of the Memorandum of Understanding (A2436659); and

4.     Agrees to delegate decisions about the allocation of regional funding to the Mayor, Chair of Infrastructure and the Chief Executive, with the understanding that the minimum level of funding to the Council be based upon the formula used to calculate the direct council allocations, and noting that participation by two-thirds of territorial authorities within the Nelson, Tasman, and Marlborough region is required to access the regional allocation; and

5.     Notes that the Memorandum of Understanding and Funding Agreement cannot be amended or modified by either party, and doing so would void these documents; and

6.     Notes that participation in this initial stage is to be undertaken in good faith, but this is a non-binding approach, and the Council can opt out of the reform process at the end of the term of the agreement (as provided for on page 5 of the Memorandum of Understanding); and

7.     Notes that the Council has been allocated $2.86 million of funding, which will be received as a grant as soon as practicable once the signed Memorandum of Understanding and Funding Agreement are returned to the Department of Internal Affairs, and a Delivery Plan has been supplied and approved (as described on page 5 of the Memorandum of Understanding).  An additional $2.86 million will also be allocated to Nelson out of the Regional allocation if this is split in the way recommended by the Steering Committee; and

8.     Notes that the Delivery Plan must show that the funding is to be applied to operating and/or capital expenditure relating to three waters infrastructure and service delivery, and which:

·        supports economic recovery through job creation; and

·      maintains, increases, and/or accelerates investment in core water infrastructure renewal and maintenance.

 

10.     Electoral System - Review                    175 - 184

Document number R18153


 

Recommendation

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Electoral System - Review (R18153); and

2.     Decides to continue with the First Past the Post electoral system;

OR

Decides to change to the Single Transferable Vote electoral system; and

3.     Notes that Council will give public notice by 19 September 2020 of the right for Nelson Council electors to petition for a poll on a change to the electoral system.

 

11.     Dedication of Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as Legal Road  - Ngati Rarua St                 185 - 192

Document number R15924

Recommendation

That the Council

1.     Receives this report Dedication of Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as Legal Road  - Ngati Rarua Street (R15924) and its attachments (A2412824 and A2422463); and

2.     Resolves to dedicate the Local Purpose Reserve (Road) at Lot 26 DP 487679 (RT 698929), Ngati Rarua Street, Nelson as legal road pursuant to Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977.

 

  

CONFIDENTIAL Business

12.     Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

That the Council

1.       Excludes the public from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

2.       The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows: 

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

1

Council Meeting - Confidential Minutes -  25 June 2020

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7.

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(h)

     To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

·    Section 7(2)(i)

     To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

2

Recommendations from Committees

Sports and Recreation Committee  -

6 August 2020

Urgent Funding Request – Tasman Rugby Union

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(b)(ii)

     To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

3

Mayor's Report - Nominations for Local Government New Zealand President and Vice-President

 

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(a)

     To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person

4

Council Status Report - Confidential

 

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(g)

     To maintain legal professional privilege

·    Section 7(2)(i)

     To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

5

Civic House Options

 

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(i)

     To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

 

 Note:

·             Youth Councillors Will Irvine and Helen Pointon will be in attendance at this meeting. (delete as appropriate)

 

 

  


Nelson City Council Minutes - 25 June 2020

 

 

Minutes of a meeting of the Nelson City Council

Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson

On Thursday 25 June 2020, commencing at 9.08a.m.

 

Present:               Her Worship the Mayor R Reese (Chairperson), Councillors
Y Bowater, T Brand, M Courtney, J Edgar (Deputy Mayor), K Fulton, M Lawrey, R O'Neill-Stevens, B McGurk, G Noonan, P Rainey, R Sanson and T Skinner

In Attendance:     Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Group Manager Environmental Management (C Barton), Group Manager Community Services (R Ball), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Team Leader Governance (R Byrne), Governance Adviser (E-J Ruthven), and Youth Councillors (H Potts and G Gutschlag)

Apologies :           Nil

 

Karakia Timatanga

Kaihautū, Pania Lee, gave a karakia timatanga.

1.       Apologies

Resolved CL/2020/072

 

That the Council

1.     Receives and accepts the apologies from Councillor Rainey for lateness.

McGurk/Her Worship the Mayor                                                         Carried

2.       Confirmation of Order of Business

Her Worship the Mayor noted that items would need to be taken in a different order to that on the agenda, in order to accommodate external participants joining the meeting for various items. 

 

3.       Interests

There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared at this point.

Councillor Noonan subsequently declared an interest in item 11, 46-48 Trafalgar Street Reserve Development Contributions.

Her Worship the Mayor subsequently declared an interest in item 6.1.1, Recommendations from Committees – Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Deliberations.

4.       Public Forum

4.1       Mike Blowers – 46-48 Trafalgar Street Reserve Development Contributions

            Mr Blowers spoke about his concerns with the proposed reduction in reserve development contributions payable with respect to the development at 46-48 Trafalgar Street.  He noted that the provision of good quality reserves was important for the health and wellbeing of residents and for environmental reasons, and that reducing contributions in this case would create a precedent for other developers to also request reductions.

            Mr Blowers outlined further his concerns regarding the development, including the amount of recreation space provided for each resident, potential flooding issues, and the impact of the development on neighbouring properties.

5.       Confirmation of Minutes

5.1       23 April 2020

Document number M8823, agenda pages 14 - 27 refer.

Resolved CL/2020/073

 

That the Council

1.     Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 23 April 2020, as a true and correct record.

Courtney/McGurk                                                                              Carried

    
Her Worship the Mayor noted that the meeting would move to consider item 11, 46-48 Trafalgar Street Reserve Development Contributions.

6.       46-48 Trafalgar Street Reserve Development Contributions (Agenda Item 11)

Document number R15861, agenda pages 81 - 108 refer.

Attendance:  Councillor Noonan declared an interest and left the meeting at 9.21a.m.

Team Leader City Development, Lisa Gibellini, presented the report.  She answered questions regarding how the land value for this development had resulted in an unanticipated level of reserves contributions, how exceptional circumstances had been demonstrated in this case, whether reducing contributions was likely to set a precedent for other requests, intensification of brownfield sites in the City Centre Zone and surrounding urban area, and the calculation of development contributions.

Attendance:  Councillor Rainey joined the meeting at 9.38a.m.  

Ms Gibellini answered further questions regarding the calculation of reserves contributions for this development.

The meeting was adjourned from 9.45a.m. to 9.53a.m.

Councillor Courtney, seconded by Councillor Sanson, moved the recommendation in the officer report with changes to clause three:

3.     Approves the reduced reserves development contribution to be calculated based on 5.5% of the value of the additional lots, plus the general reserves fixed fee of $1,160 per additional lot (all plus GST); and

Councillors debated the motion.

Resolved CL/2020/074

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report 46-48 Trafalgar Street Reserve Development Contributions (R15861) and its attachments (A2405622 and A2404805); and

2.     Approves a partial exemption from payment of reserves development contribution for 46-48 Trafalgar Street based on the exceptional circumstance demonstrated; and

3.     Approves the reduced reserves development contribution to be calculated based on 5.5% of the value of the additional lots, plus the general reserves fixed fee of $1,160 per additional lot (all plus GST); and

4.     Notes that the reduced reserves development contribution in resolution 3 above will be used as the note for the reserves development contribution in HASHAA consent SH185018.

Courtney/Sanson                                                                              Carried


The meeting returned to item 6 on the agenda, Recommendations from Committees.

7.       Recommendations from Committees (Agenda Item 6)

7.1     Environment Committee - 28 May 2020

7.1.1    Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Deliberations

Attendance:  Councillor Noonan returned to the meeting at 10.07a.m.

Her Worship the Mayor declared an interest and, due to injury sat back from the table rather than leaving the room for the duration of this item.  Councillor Edgar assumed the Chair at 10.07a.m.

Resolved CL/2020/075

 

That the Council

1.     Retains the Railway Reserve (shown on Maps 2-5 in Attachment 4 A2395332) as an off-leash area in the Dog Control Bylaw; and

2.     Retains the existing half on-leash and half-off leash approach to Isel Park (shown on Map 3 in Attachment 4 A2395332) in the Dog Control Bylaw; and

3.     Amends the Dog Control Bylaw to require:

i.      dogs to be on-leash in the grazed area of the      Grampians Reserve (Map 6 of A2395332);

ii.     dogs to be on-leash in the grazed area of Sir Stanley Whitehead Reserve (Map 7 of A2395332); and

4.     Retains as off-leash areas:

i.      the Maitai River Esplanade Reserve (Map 9 of attachment 4 A2395332);

ii      the Tantragee Reserve area (Map 8 in Attachment 4  A2395332); and

5.     Amends the Dog Control Bylaw to include Monaco Reserve as an off-leash neighbourhood park (listed in Schedule 3 and shown on Map 1 in Attachment 4 A2395332) excluding the playground which will continue to be a dog prohibited area; and

6.     Retains Titoki Reserve as an off-leash area in the Dog Control Bylaw; and

7.     Amends the Dog Control Bylaw to change Whakatū Drive Foreshore Reserve (shown on Map 15 of Attachment 4 A2395332) to an on-leash area; and

8.     Amends the Dog Control Bylaw to prohibit dogs in the fenced area of the foreshore and esplanade reserve at Paremata Flats, including the planted area of the Paremata Flats Reserve (shown on Map 10 of Attachment 4 A2395332), but excluding the walkway adjacent to the Wakapuaka River; and

9.     Amends the Dog Control Bylaw to require dogs to be kept on a lead on the margins, islands, sand and mudflats of Delaware Estuary and the walkway adjacent to the Wakapuaka River from Paremata Flats (shown on Map 10 of Attachment 4 A2395332); and

10.  Amends the Dog Control Bylaw provisions relating to the Boulder Bank in order to:

i.      retain the dogs prohibited status for the 4km from the Cut towards Boulder Bank Drive (shown on Maps 11 and 12 of Attachment 4 A2395332) during the breeding season in Schedule One to be from 15 August to the last day in February (previously from October to February); and

ii.            include the part of the Boulder Bank from Boulder Bank Drive to the Cut (shown on Maps 11, 12, and 13 of Attachment 4 A2395332) as an on-leash area in Schedule Two; and

iii.           exclude the part of the Boulder Bank northwards from Boulder Bank Drive (shown on Maps 13 and 14 of Attachment 4 A2395332) in Schedule 2 (retaining this as an off-leash area); and

iv.    change the status of the Glenduan Neighbourhood Park (refer Map 14 of Attachment 4 A2395332) to an off-leash area excluding the playground which will continue to be a dog prohibited area; and

11.  Amends the Dog Control Bylaw by changing clause 10.2 of the Bylaw to: “If, in the opinion of a Dog Control Officer, any dog has become or is likely to become a nuisance to any person or injurious to the health of any person, the Dog Control Officer may, by notice in writing, require the dog owner or the owners or occupiers of the premises at which the dog is kept, within a time specified in such notice to do all or any of the following:

a.     reduce the number of dogs on the premises;

b.     construct, alter, reconstruct or otherwise improve the kennels of other buildings or fences used to house or contain the dog;

c.     tie up or otherwise confine the dog during specified periods;

d.     take such other action as necessary to minimise or remove the likelihood of nuisance or injury to health.”; and

12.  Amends Schedule 3 to rename Emano East Reserve as Te Manu Reserve and remove reference to Emano West Reserve and Hanby Park; and

13.   Amends Schedule 1 item 15 of the Bylaw by replacing the phrase “foreshore and sea bed” with the term “common marine and coastal area” in both cases in which it is used twice within item 15; and

14.  Agrees the amendments do not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the amended Dog Control Bylaw is the most appropriate form of Bylaw; and

15.  Adopts the Dog Control Bylaw (A2390190),  subject to the key matters outlined above; and

16.  Determines that the amended Dog Control Bylaw will take effect from 27 July 2020.

Fulton/McGurk                                                                                     Carried

7.1.2    Minor amendment to the Navigation Safety Bylaw

            Attendance:  Her Worship the Mayor returned to the table at 10.12a.m. and resumed chairing the meeting.

Resolved CL/2020/076

 

That the Council

1.     Makes a minor change to  clause 3.21(b) of the Navigation Safety Bylaw, to state that the words “No person shall use any boat ramp for the launching of any trailer boat without having first paid any fees or charges which may be fixed by the Council from time to time in respect of such use, and displaying the appropriate ticket, label, sticker or other proof of such payment in a prominent and easily seen position on the trailer or in or on the towing vehicle” be replaced, from 29 June 2020 with the words “Any person who uses any boat ramp to launch a trailer boat must pay the fee or charge prescribed by Council. Non-casual users must display their permit in a prominent position on the trailer or towing vehicle.”

Fulton/O'Neill-Stevens                                                                         Carried

7.2     Hearings Panel - Other - 10 June 2020

7.2.1    Te Manu Reserve Stormwater Easement - Deliberations Report

Resolved CL/2020/077

 

That the Council

1.     Consents to the easement in gross in favour of Nelson City Council over the area shown in blue on the plan (A2329363) of Te Manu Reserve (Lot 1 DP 4341) under section 48(1) of the Reserves Act 1977, acting pursuant to a delegation from the Minister of Conservation.

Noonan/Bowater                                                                                  Carried

7.3     Sports and Recreation Committee - 18 June 2020

7.3.1    Tahunanui Modellers Pond - Alternative Option Following Iwi Engagement

            Chief Executive, Pat Dougherty, answered questions regarding stormwater issues in relation to the Modeller’s Pond, and the process leading to the Sports and Recreation Committee approving an alternative option for preliminary design.

The meeting was adjourned from 10.26a.m. to 10.28a.m. 

Along with Principal Parks and Facilities Activities Planner, Andrew Petheram, Mr Dougherty answered further questions regarding the Sports and Recreation Committee’s decision-making powers in relation to the Modeller’s Pond, and the consultation process to be followed for the alternative option approved by the Sports and Recreation Committee.

Resolved CL/2020/078

 

That the Council

1.     Alters, in accordance with Standing Order 22.6, the following parts of Council resolution # CL/2019/150 made on 8 August 2019:

3.    Approves progressing Option 2 (with minor updates) of Report R10038 and any alternative option iwi consider appropriate to preliminary design at an additional unbudgeted cost of $80,000; and

4.    Requests Council officers bring a report back to the Sports and Recreation Committee detailing the findings from updated design for Option 2, of Report 10038 and any alternative option iwi consider appropriate before proceeding to public consultation.

Skinner/Lawrey                                                                                   Carried


The meeting was adjourned from 10.45a.m. until 11.03a.m.


Her Worship the Mayor advised the meeting would move to consider item 9, Nelson Future Access – Public Engagement.

 

8.       Nelson Future Access - Public Engagement (Agenda Item 9)

Document number R13752, agenda pages 62 - 72 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, presented the report, along with Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency representatives Jim Harland, Coral Aldridge and Rhys Palmer.

Mr Harland outlined the public engagement process for the Nelson Future Access project, and Mr Palmer gave a Power Point presentation (A2409511) and tabled a public engagement brochure (A2409579). 

Mr Harland, Mr Palmer and Ms Aldridge answered questions regarding:

·    How the Nelson Future Access project fit with the Regional Land Transport Programme, the National Land Transport Programme and the Government Policy Statement;

·    Each of the long-term options contained in the public engagement brochure, noting that an amalgamation of various options may also be possible;

·    The proposed short term options to optimise the transport network, noting that decisions on the long-term options would influence the range of short term options;

·    The manner in which the long-term options were portrayed in the public engagement brochure;

·    Methods of engagement and how these fed into the various decisions to be made going forward;

·    Resilience considerations in relation to each of the proposed long-term options;

·    Options for providing further information in the Frequently Asked Questions to ensure a balanced representation of each long-term option;

·    Walking and cycling facilities in relation to each option, including the inclusion of Rocks Road Walking and Cycling facilities;

·    Climate change considerations in relation to each of the proposed routes;

·    Reasons for changing the name of the new-build option to the ‘Inland Route’ rather than the ‘Southern Link’;

·    The impact on communities in the immediate vicinity of each proposed long-term option;

·    Cost estimates for each proposed long-term option;

·    Timeframes for implementing short-term measures;

·    Parking issues in relation to the proposed short-term measures; and

·    Links with other transport projects in the wider region.

Councillor Noonan, seconded by Councillor Edgar, moved the recommendation in the officer report.

Councillors debated the motion and views for and against were expressed.

Resolved CL/2020/079

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Nelson Future Access - Public Engagement   (R13752) and its attachment (A2403124); and

2.     Receives for information the Nelson Future Access packages as detailed in Attachment A2403124 of Report R13752 that will form part of the public engagement.

Noonan/Edgar                                                                                   Carried

The motion was put and a division was called:

For

Her Worship the Mayor (Chairperson)

Cr Bowater

Cr Brand

Cr Courtney

Cr Edgar

Cr Fulton

Cr O'Neill-Stevens

Cr McGurk

Cr Noonan

Cr Rainey

Cr Sanson

Cr Skinner

Against

Cr Lawrey

 

The motion was carried 12 - 1.

 

Attachments

1    A2409511 - Power Point presentation - Nelson Future Access packages

2    A2409579 - Tabled document - Nelson Future Access packages

The meeting was adjourned from 1.05p.m. to 1.56p.m., during which time Councillors Fulton and Skinner left the meeting.

Her Worship the Mayor advised the meeting would return to item 7, Mayor’s Report.

 

9.       Mayor's Report (Agenda Item 7)

Document number R16937, agenda pages 54 - 55 refer.

Her Worship the Mayor presented the report and answered questions regarding the opening of the Lemvig climatorium.

It was noted that Councillor Fulton increasing workload in relation to the Climate Forum had led her to step down from the Nelson Regional Landfill Business unit, and she was thanked for her contribution to the Nelson Regional Landfill Business Unit.

Resolved CL/2020/080

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Mayor's Report (R16937); and

2.     Amends the membership of the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit by substituting Councillor Fulton with Councillor McGurk.

Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar                                                           Carried

Attendance:  Councillor Lawrey left the meeting at 2.04p.m.

 

10.     Saxton Field Committee - Update to Delegations

Document number R17035, agenda pages 73 - 80 refer.

Resolved CL/2020/081

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Saxton Field Committee - Update to Delegations (R17035) and its attachments (A2389043 and A2389126); and

2.     Delegates the power to the Saxton Field Committee to approve the draft Saxton Field Reserve Management Plan for public consultation, to undertake the public consultation process and to be the Hearing Panel to hear and deliberate on the submissions for the draft Saxton Field Reserve Management Plan; and

3.     Notes that the Saxton Field Committee will recommend the final Saxton Field Reserve Management Plan to Tasman District and Nelson City Councils for adoption.

Noonan/Bowater                                                                               Carried

Her Worship the Mayor advised the meeting would next consider item 12, Nelson Plan: Additional Funding.

 

11.     Nelson Plan: Additional Funding (Agenda Item 12)

Document number R18069, agenda pages 109 - 114 refer.

Attendance:  Councillor Skinner returned to the meeting at 2.06p.m. and Councillor Fulton returned to the meeting at 2.07p.m.

Group Manager Environmental Management, Clare Barton, and Manager Environmental Planning, Maxine Day, presented the report.

Resolved CL/2020/082

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Nelson Plan: Additional Funding (R18069); and

2.     Approves unbudgeted expenditure of $135,500 to progress the Draft Nelson Plan in 2019/2020.

McGurk/Sanson                                                                                 Carried

Her worship the Mayor noted the meeting would next consider item 8, New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency Amendments.

 

12.     New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency Amendments (Agenda Item 8)

Document number R16983, agenda pages 56 - 61 refer.

Group Manager Corporate Services, Nikki Harrison presented the report, and Local Government Funding Agency Senior Manager, Credit and External Relationships, Andrew Michl, joined the meeting via audio-visual link.

Ms Harrison and Mr Michl answered questions regarding the proposed increase in Local Government Funding Agency borrowing notes, borrowing limits, examples of when Councils or Council-Controlled Organisations may take advantage of the changes, and the likelihood of whether calls could be made on the guarantees provided by Councils around the country.

The meeting was adjourned from 2.25p.m. to 2.28p.m.

It was noted that Mr John Peters, Chair, and Mr John Murray, external appointee, of the Audit and Risk Subcommittee supported the recommendation. 

Resolved CL/2020/083

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency Amendments (R16983); and

2.     Authorises the Council’s entry into the documentation noted in this report.

3.     Authorises the Mayor and Deputy Mayor to execute the following deeds for the purposes of recommendation 2 above:

(i)           Amendment and Restatement Deed (Multi-issuer Deed);

(ii)          Amendment and Restatement Deed (Notes Subscription Agreements); and

(iii)         Amendment and Restatement Deed (Guarantee and Indemnity).

4.     Authorises the Chief Executive to execute the Chief Executive Certificate and such other documents and take such other steps on behalf of Council as the Chief Executive considers it is necessary to execute or take to give effect to recommendation 2 above.

Sanson/Edgar                                                                                   Carried

The meeting was adjourned from 2.34p.m. to 2.44p.m.

 

Extension of Meeting Time

Resolved CL/2020/084

 

That the Council

1.     Extends the meeting time beyond six hours, pursuant to Standing Order 4.2.

Bowater/Skinner                                                                               Carried

Her Worship the Mayor advised the meeting would next consider item 13, Deconstruction of 23 Halifax Street (Former Mediterranean Food Warehouse building).

13.     Deconstruction of 23 Halifax Street (Former Mediterranean Food Warehouse building)

Document number R15885, agenda pages 115 - 125 refer.

Manager Parks and Facilities, Rosie Bartlett, and Parks and Facilities Activity Planner, Jane Loughnan, presented the report. 

Ms Bartlett and Ms Loughnan answered questions regarding the potential risk posed by the building to pedestrians, the proposed timeframe for deconstruction work, potential re-use of materials within the building, and potential alternative uses for the site once deconstruction was complete. 

Resolved CL/2020/085

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Deconstruction of 23 Halifax Street (Former Mediterranean Food Warehouse building) (R15885); and

2.     Approves the deconstruction of the building at 23 Halifax Street (formerly known as the Mediterranean Food Warehouse); and  

3.     Notes the inclusion in the Annual Plan of 2020/21 $1,048,000 for the Elma Turner Library Redevelopment project, including work required to deconstruct the building at 23 Halifax Street.

McGurk/Fulton                                                                                  Carried

 

14.     Elma Turner Library, Civic House and Climatorium

Document number R16984, agenda pages 126 - 135 refer.

Consultant, Chris Ward, presented the report.  He answered questions regarding the City Spatial Plan and how this aligned with proposed decision-making for the Elma Turner Library, Civic House and the Climatorium, how the proposed stepped approach differed to an integrated approach to these projects, previous Council decisions regarding the riverside location for the library, and how to take account of climate change considerations in the library project.

Councillor Fulton, seconded by Councillor Noonan, moved the recommendation in the officer report.

The Chief Executive, Pat Dougherty, answered further questions regarding flooding risks on the Maitai River and design solutions for a riverside library taking flood modelling into account.

Councillors debated the motion and views for and against were expressed.

   Resolved CL/2020/086

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Elma Turner Library, Civic House and Climatorium (R16984); and

2.     Adopts a stepped approach as set out in R16984 towards decision making on the Elma Turner Library, Civic House and a Climatorium.

Fulton/Noonan                                                                                    Carried

The motion was put and a division was called:

For

Her Worship the Mayor (Chairperson)

Cr Bowater

Cr Brand

Cr Courtney

Cr Edgar

Cr Fulton

Cr McGurk

Cr Noonan

Cr Skinner

Against

Cr Lawrey

Cr O'Neill-Stevens

Cr Rainey

Cr Sanson

 

 

The motion was carried 9 - 4.

      

15.     Exclusion of the Public

Resolved CL/2020/087

 

That the Council

1.     Excludes the public from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

2.     The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

Her Worship the Mayor/O'Neill-Stevens                                             Carried

 

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

2

Recommendations from Committees

Infrastructure Committee 07/05/20

Wastney Terrace Stormwater Upgrade – Property Negotiations

Joint Shareholders Committee 18/05/20

Revised Port Nelson Ltd Constitution

Sports & Recreation Committee 18/06/20

Poorman Valley Stream Shared Path Construction – Main Road Stoke to Neale Avenue

 

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(h)

     To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

·    Section 7(2)(i)

     To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

3

Nelmac - Utilities Maintenance and Operations Contract - Recommendation from Infrastructure Committee

 

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(h)

     To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

The meeting went into public excluded session at 4.25p.m. and resumed in public session at 5.20p.m.

 

Restatements

 

It was resolved while the public was excluded:

2

CONFIDENTIAL: Recommendations from Committees - Wastney Terrace Stormwater Upgrade - Property Negotiations

 

That the Council

3.      Agrees that the report, attachments and decision be excluded from public release at this time.

 

2

CONFIDENTIAL: Recommendations from Committees - Poorman Valley Stream Shared Path Construction  - Main Road Stoke to Neale Avenue

 

That the Council

4.      Agrees that Report (R10308), Attachment (A2306138) and the decision be made publicly available once negotiations are concluded.

  

3

CONFIDENTIAL: Nelmac - Utilities Maintenance and Operations Contract - Recommendation from Infrastructure Committee

 

That the Council

1.      Leaves the item Nelmac – Utilities Maintenance and Operations Contract – Recommendation from Infrastructure Committee to lie until the Council meeting on 13 August 2020.

 

Karakia Whakamutunga

Elected members gave a karakia whakamutunga.

 


 

There being no further business the meeting ended at 5.21p.m.

 

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

 

 

                                                         Chairperson                                    Date   


Nelson City Council Minutes - 30 June 2020

 

Minutes of a meeting of the Nelson City Council

Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson

On Tuesday 30 June 2020, commencing at 10.07a.m.

 

Present:               Her Worship the Mayor R Reese (Chairperson), Councillors Y Bowater, T Brand, M Courtney, J Edgar (Deputy Mayor), K Fulton, M Lawrey, R O'Neill-Stevens, B McGurk, G Noonan, P Rainey, R Sanson and T Skinner

In Attendance:     Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Group Manager Environmental Management (C Barton), Group Manager Community Services (R Ball), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Governance Support (K McLean) and Governance Adviser (E Stephenson)

Apologies :           Nil

 

Karakia Timatanga

There was an opening karakia.

1.       Apologies

          There were no apologies.

2.       Confirmation of Order of Business

Her Worship the Mayor advised that the Adoption of the Annual Plan 2020/21 and the setting of the rates 2020/21 would be dealt with as the first report.

 

3.       Interests

There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.

4.       Public Forum

There was no public forum.

5.       Confirmation of Minutes

5.1       3 June 2020

Document number M10966, agenda pages 15 - 46 refer.

 

Resolved CL/2020/093

 

That the Council

1.     Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 3 June 2020, and reconvened on 4 and 9 June 2020, as a true and correct record.

Courtney/Brand                                                                                Carried

  

 6.      Mayor's Report

Her Worship the Mayor presented her report, together with a Project Kōkiri press release.

Resolved CL/2020/094

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the Mayor’s Report (R18123).

 

Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar                                                           Carried

 

Attachments

1    A2412249 - Mayor's Report 30 June 2020

2    A2412243 Project Kōkiri press release

 

7.       Adoption of the Annual Plan 2020/21 and setting of the rates for 2020/21 (Agenda Item 9)

Document number R18078, agenda pages 77 - 210 refer.

Group Manager Corporate Services, Nikki Harrison, noted that there were some minor amendments to the recommendations to make them more legally robust and that there were no corrections to the report.

Ms Harrison answered questions regarding financial reserves estimates, the deficit in the Dog Control Reserve, the Housing Reserve and the Forestry Fund closed account. It was noted that use of Forestry Fund surplus to apply to rates was not in accordance with the current Finance and Revenue Policy and that would be a discussion for the Long Term Plan (LTP).

A request was made to include the final average rate adjustment figures in the Annual Plan document.

It was confirmed that the Food Trial was being adopted as part of the Annual Plan.

Manager Strategy, Mark Tregurtha, answered questions regarding changes in assumptions and it was noted that there were still a number of uncertainties and ongoing negotiations.

In response to a question regarding whether capital projects were achievable, Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, said that this would be a tough year, but that with additional resources, officers would be doing their best.

Group Manager Community Services, Roger Ball, answered questions regarding the Stoke Youth Park Project and Ms Harrison answered questions regarding rates relief and previous borrowing to reduce rates rises.

Following debate, Her Worship the Mayor acknowledged and thanked all submitters, staff and Elected Members involved in the Annual Plan process.

The motion was taken in parts.

 Resolved CL/2020/095

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Adoption of the Annual Plan 2020/21 and setting of the rates for 2020/21 (R18078)  and its attachment (A2409905).

Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar                                                           Carried

Resolutions CL/2020/096 and CL/2020/097 below were revoked at the 9 July 2020 Extraordinary Council meeting (resolution CL/2020/105)

Resolved CL/2020/096

That the Council

2.     Adopts the Annual Plan 2020/21 (A2409905) pursuant to Section 95 of the Local Government Act 2002.

The motion was put and a division was called:

For

Her Worship the Mayor Reese (Chairperson)

Cr Bowater

Cr Brand

Cr Courtney

Cr Edgar

Cr Fulton

Cr Lawrey

Cr O'Neill-Stevens

Cr McGurk

Cr Noonan

Cr Rainey

Cr Sanson

Cr Skinner

Against

Nil

Abstained/Interest

Nil

 

The motion was carried 13 - 0.

Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar                                       Carried unanimously

Resolved CL/2020/097

 

That the Council

3.     Delegates the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Chief Executive to make any necessary minor editorial amendments prior to the release of the Annual Plan 2020/21 to the public; and

4.     Sets the following rates under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, on rating units in the district for the financial year commencing on 1 July 2020 and ending on 30 June 2021.

The revenue approved below will be raised by the rates and charges that follow.

Revenue approved:

General Rate                                             $41,032,974

Uniform Annual General Charge               $9,128,635

Stormwater and Flood Protection Charge $6,228,870

Waste Water Charge                                  $8,814,058

Water Annual Charge                                 $3,721,307

Water Volumetric Charge                           $8,683,050

Clean Heat Warm Homes and Solar Saver   $208,000

Rates and Charges (excluding GST)       $77,816,894

Goods and Services Tax
(at the current rate)                                $11,672,534

Total Rates and Charges                          $89,489,428

The rates and charges below are GST inclusive.

(1) General Rate

A general rate set under section 13 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential land value basis as described below:

   a rate of 0.51973 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “residential – single unit” category.

·    a rate of 0.51973 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “residential empty section” category.

·    a rate of 0.57170 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “single residential unit forming part of a parent valuation, the remainder of which is non-rateable” category. This represents a plus 10% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 0.57170 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “multi residential” category. This represents a plus 10% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 1.47642 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty) category. This represents a plus 184.075% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 1.23748 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a plus 138.1% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 0.99788 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a plus 92% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 0.75881 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a plus 46% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 1.57772 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city” subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty) category. This represents a plus 203.565% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 1.31336 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a plus 152.7% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 1.04882 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a plus 101.8% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 0.78427 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a plus 50.9% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 1.51501 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty)” category. This represents a plus 191.5% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 1.26606 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a plus 143.6% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 1.01763 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a plus 95.8% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 0.76868 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a plus 47.9% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 0.33782 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “rural” category. This represents a minus 35% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 0.46776 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “small holding” category. This represents a minus 10% differential on land value.

(2) Uniform Annual General Charge

A uniform annual general charge under section 15 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $434.64 per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit.

(3) Stormwater and Flood Protection Charge

A targeted rate under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $335.36 per rating unit, this rate is payable by all ratepayers excluding rural rating units, rating units east of the Gentle Annie saddle, Saxton’s Island and Council’s stormwater network.

(4) Waste Water Charge

A targeted rate for waste water disposal under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of:

·     $477.33 per separately used or inhabited part of a residential, multi residential, rural and small holding rating units that is connected either directly or through a private drain to a public waste water drain.

·     For commercial rating units, a waste water charge of $119.33 per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit that is connected either directly or through a private drain to a public waste water drain. Note:  a “trade” waste charge will also be levied.

(5) Water Annual Charge

A targeted rate for water supply under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of:

Water charge (per connection)                      $200.60

(6) Water Volumetric Rate

A targeted rate for water provided under Section 19 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of:

Price of water:

Usage up to 10,000 cu.m/year               $2.092 per m³

Usage from 10,001 – 100,000 cu.m/year                                                                                        $2.006 per m³

Usage over 100,000 cu.m/year              $1.584 per m³

Summer irrigation usage over

10,000 cu.m/year                                     $2.049 per m³

(7) Clean Heat Warm Homes

A targeted rate per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit that has been provided with home insulation and/or a heater to replace a non-complying solid fuel burner under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 in accordance with agreement of the original ratepayer, of:

·     For properties assessed the Clean Heat Warm Homes rate as a result of agreements entered into on or after 1 July 2011, the targeted rate for each year for 10 years will be the total cost of the installed works excluding GST, divided by 10, plus GST.

·     For properties assessed the Clean Heat Warm Homes rate as a result of agreements entered into prior to 1 July 2011 the targeted rate of:

 

Loan Assistance Range

Installation after
30 Sept 2010

Completed prior to
30 Sept 2010

$1,400 to $1,599

$140.00

$143.11

$1,600 to $1,799

$160.00

$163.56

$1,800 to $1,999

$180.00

$184.00

$2,000 to $2,199

$200.00

$204.44

$2,200 to $2,399

$220.00

$224.89

$2,400 to $2,599

$240.00

$245.34

$2,600 to $2,799

$260.00

$265.78

$2,800 to $2,999

$280.00

$286.22

$3,000 to $3,199

$300.00

$306.67

$3,200 to $3,399

$320.00

$327.11

$3,400 to $3,599

$340.00

$347.56

$3,600 to $3,799

$360.00

$368.00

$3,800 to $3,999

$380.00

$388.44

$4,000 to $4,199

$400.00

$408.89

$4,200 to $4,399

$420.00

$429.34

$4,400 to $4,599

$440.00

$449.78

$4,600 to $4,799

$460.00

$470.22

$4,800 to $4,999

$480.00

$490.67

(8) Solar Hot Water Systems

A targeted rate for any separately used or inhabited parts of a rating unit that has been provided with financial assistance to install a solar hot water system under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 in accordance with agreement of the original ratepayer, of the following factors on the extent of provision of service (net cost of the work including GST after deducting EECA grant, plus funding cost):

·     0.14964 (including GST) for agreements entered into prior to 1 July 2011, multiplied by the Net Cost of the Work adjusted for any increased GST.

·     0.13847 (including GST) for agreements entered into after 1 July 2011 multiplied by the Net Cost of the Work.

Other Rating Information:

Due Dates for Payment of Rates

The above rates (excluding water volumetric rates) are payable at the Nelson City Council office, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson and shall be payable in four instalments on the following dates:

 

Instalment Number

Instalment Due Date

Last Date for Payment

Penalty Date

Instalment 1

1 August 2020

20 August 2020

26 August 2020

Instalment 2

1 November 2020

20 November 2020

26 November 2020

Instalment 3

1 February 2021

20 February 2021

26 February 2021

Instalment 4

1 May 2021

20 May 2021

26 May 2021

Rates instalments not paid on or by the Last Date for payment above will incur penalties as detailed in the section “Penalty on Rates”.

Due Dates for Payment of Water Volumetric Rates

Residential water volumetric rates are payable at the Nelson City Council office, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson and shall be payable on the following dates:

 

Billing Month

Last Date for Payment

Penalty Date

July 2020

21 September 2020

25 September 2020

August 2020

21 September 2020

25 September 2020

September 2020

20 October 2020

26 October 2020

October 2020

21 December 2020

11 January 2021

November 2020

21 December 2020

11 January 2021

December 2020

20 January 2021

26 January 2021

January 2021

22 March 2021

26 March 2021

February 2021

22 March 2021

26 March 2021

March 2021

20 April 2021

26 April 2021

April 2021

21 June 2021

25 June 2021

May 2021

21 June 2021

25 June 2021

June 2021

20 July 2021

26 July 2021

Special (final) water volumetric rates will be payable 14 days from the invoice date of the special (final) water reading as shown on the water invoice.

Commercial and Industrial water volumetric rates are payable at the Nelson City Council office, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson and shall be payable on the following dates:

Billing Month

Last Date for Payment

Penalty Date

July 2020

20 August 2020

26 August 2020

August 2020

21 September 2020

25 September 2020

September 2020

20 October 2020

26 October 2020

October 2020

20 November 2020

26 November 2020

November 2020

21 December 2020

11 January 2021

December 2020

20 January 2021

26 January 2021

January 2021

22 February 2021

26 February 2021

February 2021

22 March 2021

26 March 2021

March 2021

20 April 2021

26 April 2021

April 2021

20 May 2021

26 May 2021

May 2021

21 June 2021

25 June 2021

June 2021

20 July 2021

26 July 2021

Penalty on Rates

Pursuant to Sections 57 and 58 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the council authorises the following penalties on unpaid rates (excluding volumetric water rate accounts) and delegates authority to the Group Manager Corporate Services to apply them:

·    a charge of 5% of the amount of each rate instalment remaining unpaid after the due date stated above, to be added on the penalty date as shown in the above table and also shown on each rate instalment notice.

·    a charge of 5% will be added on 8 July 2020 to any balance from a previous rating year (including penalties previously charged) remaining outstanding on 7 July 2020.

·    a further additional charge of 5% will be added on 8 January 2021 to any balance from a previous rating year (including penalties previously charged) to which a penalty has been added  according to the bullet point above, remaining outstanding on 7 January 2021.

Penalty on Water Volumetric Rates

Pursuant to Sections 57 and 58 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the council authorises the following penalties on unpaid volumetric water rates and delegates authority to the Group Manager Corporate Services to apply them:

 

·    a charge of 5% of the amount of each volumetric water rate account remaining unpaid after the due date stated above, to be added on the penalty date as shown in the above table and also shown on each volumetric water rate account.

Penalty Remission

In accordance with Council’s rate remission policy, the Council will approve the remission of the penalty added on instalment one due to late payment provided the total annual rates are paid in full by 20 November 2020. If full payment of the annual rates is not paid by 20 November 2020 the penalties relating to the first instalment outlined above will apply.

The above penalties will not be charged where Council has agreed to a programme for payment of outstanding rates.

The Group Manager Corporate Services is given discretion to remit rates penalties either in whole or part in accordance with Council’s approved rates remission policy, as may be amended from time to time.

Discount on Rates

Pursuant to Section 55 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the Council will allow a discount of 2.0 percent of the total rates (excluding volumetric water rates) where a ratepayer pays the year’s rates in full on or before the Last Date for Payment for instalment one being 20 August 2020.

Payment of Rates

The rates shall be payable at the Council offices, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson between the hours of 8.30am to 5.00pm Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday and 9.00am to 5.00pm Wednesday.

Where any payment is made by a ratepayer that is less than the amount now payable, the Council will apply the payment firstly to any rates outstanding from previous rating years and then proportionately across all current year rates due.

 

Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar                                                           Carried

Attachments

1    A2412831 Designed Annual Plan 2020/21

      

 

8.       Contract for Services between Nelson City Council and Uniquely Nelson

Document number R10407, agenda pages 47 - 57 refer.

Chris Butler and Simon Duffy of Uniquely Nelson were present for this item. A supporting document was tabled (A2413003). In response to questions they confirmed that a contract would enable them to clarify objectives, outcomes and deliverables and to formulate a strategic business plan.

Group Manager Environmental Management, Clare Barton, answered questions regarding requests for information and LGOIMA.

Discussion took place regarding the percentage of funding from Council (80%) and it was noted that three yearly funding would give more security.

Resolved CL/2020/098

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Contract for Services between Nelson City Council and Uniquely Nelson (R10407) and its attachments (A2181631 and A2247471); and

2.     Agrees to a change to a contract for services for the contractual relationship between Council and Uniquely Nelson; and

3.     Notes that the existing Memorandum of Understanding between Council and Uniquely Nelson will cease to apply from the date that the new contract is signed.

 

Edgar/Bowater                                                                                  Carried

Attachments

1    A2413003 Uniquely Nelson tabled document

 

The meeting was adjourned from 12.15p.m. until 12.30p.m.

 

9.       Funding Request: Businesses for Climate Action

Document number R18096, agenda pages 58 - 76 refer.

Climate Change Champion, Chris Cameron, answered questions regarding the report.

Discussion took place regarding an amendment to clause 3 of the recommendation as the word ‘contingent’ was felt to be too strong and the motion was amended accordingly.

 

Resolved CL/2020/099

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Funding Request: Businesses for Climate Action (R18096) and its attachments (A2406802 and A2406803); and

2.     Approves $28,880 of Climate Change Reserve funding for Businesses for Climate Action to support Nelson businesses to measure and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions; and

3.     Agrees that Businesses for Climate Action be encouranged to undertake further engagement with the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum.

 

Noonan/Her Worship the Mayor                                                        Carried

 


 

 

10.     Exclusion of the Public

 

Resolved CL/2020/100

 

That the Council

1.     Excludes the public from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

2.     The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

Skinner/Brand                                                                                  Carried

 

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

1

Confirmation of Minutes

 

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(g)

     To maintain legal professional privilege

·    Section 7(2)(h)

     To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

·    Section 7(2)(i)

     To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

The meeting went into confidential session at 12.50p.m., and resumed in public session at 12.51p.m.

The only business transacted in confidential session was to confirm the minutes. In accordance with the Local Government Official Information Meetings Act, no reason for withholding this information from the public exists therefore this business has been recorded in the open minutes.

11.     Confirmation of Minutes

Document number R18090

Resolved CL/2020/101

 

That the Council

1.     Confirms the minutes of the confidential session of the meeting of the Council, held on 3 June 2020, and reconvened on 4 and 9 June 2020, as a true and correct record.

 

Skinner/O'Neill-Stevens                                                                    Carried

 

12.     Re-admittance of the Public

Resolved CL/2020/102

 

That the Council

1.     Re-admits the public to the meeting.

Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar                                                         Carried

 

 

There being no further business the meeting ended at 12.51p.m.

 

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

 

 

 

                                                         Chairperson                                    Date

        

 


Nelson City Council Minutes - 9 July 2020

 

Minutes of an extraordinary meeting of the Nelson City Council

Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson

On Thursday 9 July 2020, commencing at 9.06a.m.

 

Present:               Her Worship the Mayor R Reese (Chairperson), Councillors
Y Bowater, T Brand, M Courtney, J Edgar (Deputy Mayor),
K Fulton, M Lawrey, R O'Neill-Stevens, B McGurk, G Noonan and R Sanson

In Attendance:     Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Group Manager Environmental Management (C Barton), Group Manager Community Services (R Ball), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Governance Advisers (E-J Ruthven and E Stephenson) and Youth Councillors T Wheatley and V van Heemswyck

Apology:              Councillors Rainey and Skinner

 


          Karakia Timatanga

      There was an opening karakia.

 

1.       Apologies

Resolved CL/2020/103

 

That the Council

1.     Receives and accepts the apologies from Councillors P Rainey and T Skinner.

Her Worship the Mayor/Courtney                                                      Carried

 

2.       Confirmation of Order of Business

There was no change to the order of business.

    Attendance: Councillor Fulton entered the meeting at 9.06a.m.

3.       Interests

There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.

4.       Public Forum

There was no public forum.  

5.       Mayor's Report  

          There was no Mayor’s Report.

6.       Balanced budget requirements for 2020/21 Financial Year

Document number R18131, agenda pages 24 - 48 refer.

Group Manager Corporate Services, Nikki Harrison and Group Manager Strategy and Communications, Nicky McDonald presented the report.

Ms Harrison advised that the adoption of the Annual Plan and rating resolutions on 30 June should have also included a resolution to not have a balanced budget, prior to the adoption of the Annual Plan and setting of rates. She answered questions regarding the legal review, the impact on rates assessments, and items that contributed to the unbalanced budget.

Ms McDonald confirmed that the Local Government Act 2002 required that the Annual Plan recommendations needed to be adopted in a set order, with the resolution to not have a balanced budget passed before the Annual Plan and setting of the rates resolutions. Accordingly, the officers’ recommendation was for Council to revoke the previous resolutions, passed on 30 June 2020, and then pass all the resolutions, including the unbalanced budget resolution, in the correct order.

Officers advised that additional checks would be put in place for the Annual and Long Term Plans to prevent this error occurring in future.

The motion was taken in parts.

Resolved CL/2020/104

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Balanced budget requirements for 2020/21 Financial Year (R18131).

Brand/Bowater                                                                                 Carried

Resolved CL/2020/105

That the Council

2.     Revokes the resolutions (CL/2020/096 and CL/2020/97) of 30 June 2020 below :

2 “Adopts the Annual Plan 2020/21 (A2409905) pursuant to Section 95 of the Local Government Act 2002.

3.   Delegates the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Chief Executive to make any necessary minor editorial amendments prior to the release of the Annual Plan 2020/21 to the public; and

4.  Sets the following rates under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, on rating units in the district for the financial year commencing on 1 July 2020 and ending on 30 June 2021.

The revenue approved below will be raised by the rates and charges that follow.

Revenue approved:

General Rate                                                  $41,032,974

Uniform Annual General Charge                        $9,128,635

Stormwater and Flood Protection Charge          $6,228,870

Waste Water Charge                                        $8,814,058

Water Annual Charge                                        $3,721,307

Water Volumetric Charge                                  $8,683,050

Clean Heat Warm Homes and Solar Saver           $208,000

Rates and Charges (excluding GST)                 $77,816,894

Goods and Services Tax
(at the current rate)                                       $11,672,534

Total Rates and Charges                                 $89,489,428

The rates and charges below are GST inclusive.

(1) General Rate

A general rate set under section 13 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential land value basis as described below:

   a rate of 0.51973 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “residential – single unit” category.

·    a rate of 0.51973 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “residential empty section” category.

·    a rate of 0.57170 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “single residential unit forming part of a parent valuation, the remainder of which is non-rateable” category. This represents a plus 10% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 0.57170 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “multi residential” category. This represents a plus 10% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 1.47642 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty) category. This represents a plus 184.075% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 1.23748 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a plus 138.1% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 0.99788 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a plus 92% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 0.75881 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a plus 46% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 1.57772 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city” subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty) category. This represents a plus 203.565% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 1.31336 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a plus 152.7% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 1.04882 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a plus 101.8% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 0.78427 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a plus 50.9% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 1.51501 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty)” category. This represents a plus 191.5% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 1.26606 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a plus 143.6% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 1.01763 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a plus 95.8% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 0.76868 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a plus 47.9% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 0.33782 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “rural” category. This represents a minus 35% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 0.46776 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “small holding” category. This represents a minus 10% differential on land value.

(2) Uniform Annual General Charge

A uniform annual general charge under section 15 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $434.64 per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit.

(3) Stormwater and Flood Protection Charge

A targeted rate under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $335.36 per rating unit, this rate is payable by all ratepayers excluding rural rating units, rating units east of the Gentle Annie saddle, Saxton’s Island and Council’s stormwater network.

(4) Waste Water Charge

A targeted rate for waste water disposal under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of:

·     $477.33 per separately used or inhabited part of a residential, multi residential, rural and small holding rating units that is connected either directly or through a private drain to a public waste water drain.

·     For commercial rating units, a waste water charge of $119.33 per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit that is connected either directly or through a private drain to a public waste water drain. Note: a “trade” waste charge will also be levied.

(5) Water Annual Charge

A targeted rate for water supply under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of:

Water charge (per connection)                                                $200.60

(6) Water Volumetric Rate

A targeted rate for water provided under Section 19 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of:

Price of water:

Usage up to 10,000 cu.m/year                            $2.092 per m³

        Usage from 10,001 – 100,000 cu.m/year                                                                                                                             $2.006 per m³

Usage over 100,000 cu.m/year                                  $1.584 per m³

Summer irrigation usage over 10,000 cu.m/year                                                                                                                                                          $2.049 per m³

(7) Clean Heat Warm Homes

A targeted rate per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit that has been provided with home insulation and/or a heater to replace a non-complying solid fuel burner under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 in accordance with agreement of the original ratepayer, of:

·     For properties assessed the Clean Heat Warm Homes rate as a result of agreements entered into on or after 1 July 2011, the targeted rate for each year for 10 years will be the total cost of the installed works excluding GST, divided by 10, plus GST.

·     For properties assessed the Clean Heat Warm Homes rate as a result of agreements entered into prior to 1 July 2011 the targeted rate of:

 

Loan Assistance Range

Installation after
30 Sept 2010

Completed prior to
30 Sept 2010

$1,400 to $1,599

$140.00

$143.11

$1,600 to $1,799

$160.00

$163.56

$1,800 to $1,999

$180.00

$184.00

$2,000 to $2,199

$200.00

$204.44

$2,200 to $2,399

$220.00

$224.89

$2,400 to $2,599

$240.00

$245.34

$2,600 to $2,799

$260.00

$265.78

$2,800 to $2,999

$280.00

$286.22

$3,000 to $3,199

$300.00

$306.67

$3,200 to $3,399

$320.00

$327.11

$3,400 to $3,599

$340.00

$347.56

$3,600 to $3,799

$360.00

$368.00

$3,800 to $3,999

$380.00

$388.44

$4,000 to $4,199

$400.00

$408.89

$4,200 to $4,399

$420.00

$429.34

$4,400 to $4,599

$440.00

$449.78

$4,600 to $4,799

$460.00

$470.22

$4,800 to $4,999

$480.00

$490.67

(8) Solar Hot Water Systems

A targeted rate for any separately used or inhabited parts of a rating unit that has been provided with financial assistance to install a solar hot water system under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 in accordance with agreement of the original ratepayer, of the following factors on the extent of provision of service (net cost of the work including GST after deducting EECA grant, plus funding cost):

·     0.14964 (including GST) for agreements entered into prior to 1 July 2011, multiplied by the Net Cost of the Work adjusted for any increased GST.

·     0.13847 (including GST) for agreements entered into after 1 July 2011 multiplied by the Net Cost of the Work.

Other Rating Information:

Due Dates for Payment of Rates

The above rates (excluding water volumetric rates) are payable at the Nelson City Council office, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson and shall be payable in four instalments on the following dates:

Instalment Number

Instalment Due Date

Last Date for Payment

Penalty Date

Instalment 1

1 August 2020

20 August 2020

26 August 2020

Instalment 2

1 November 2020

20 November 2020

26 November 2020

Instalment 3

1 February 2021

20 February 2021

26 February 2021

Instalment 4

1 May 2021

20 May 2021

26 May 2021

Rates instalments not paid on or by the Last Date for payment above will incur penalties as detailed in the section “Penalty on Rates”.

Due Dates for Payment of Water Volumetric Rates

Residential water volumetric rates are payable at the Nelson City Council office, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson and shall be payable on the following dates:

 

Billing Month

Last Date for Payment

Penalty Date

July 2020

21 September 2020

25 September 2020

August 2020

21 September 2020

25 September 2020

September 2020

20 October 2020

26 October 2020

October 2020

21 December 2020

11 January 2021

November 2020

21 December 2020

11 January 2021

December 2020

20 January 2021

26 January 2021

January 2021

22 March 2021

26 March 2021

February 2021

22 March 2021

26 March 2021

March 2021

20 April 2021

26 April 2021

April 2021

21 June 2021

25 June 2021

May 2021

21 June 2021

25 June 2021

June 2021

20 July 2021

26 July 2021

Special (final) water volumetric rates will be payable 14 days from the invoice date of the special (final) water reading as shown on the water invoice.

Commercial and Industrial water volumetric rates are payable at the Nelson City Council office, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson and shall be payable on the following dates:

Billing Month

Last Date for Payment

Penalty Date

July 2020

20 August 2020

26 August 2020

August 2020

21 September 2020

25 September 2020

September 2020

20 October 2020

26 October 2020

October 2020

20 November 2020

26 November 2020

November 2020

21 December 2020

11 January 2021

December 2020

20 January 2021

26 January 2021

January 2021

22 February 2021

26 February 2021

February 2021

22 March 2021

26 March 2021

March 2021

20 April 2021

26 April 2021

April 2021

20 May 2021

26 May 2021

May 2021

21 June 2021

25 June 2021

June 2021

20 July 2021

26 July 2021

Penalty on Rates

Pursuant to Sections 57 and 58 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the council authorises the following penalties on unpaid rates (excluding volumetric water rate accounts) and delegates authority to the Group Manager Corporate Services to apply them:

·    a charge of 5% of the amount of each rate instalment remaining unpaid after the due date stated above, to be added on the penalty date as shown in the above table and also shown on each rate instalment notice.

·    a charge of 5% will be added on 8 July 2020 to any balance from a previous rating year (including penalties previously charged) remaining outstanding on 7 July 2020.

·    a further additional charge of 5% will be added on 8 January 2021 to any balance from a previous rating year (including penalties previously charged) to which a penalty has been added  according to the bullet point above, remaining outstanding on 7 January 2021.

Penalty on Water Volumetric Rates

Pursuant to Sections 57 and 58 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the council authorises the following penalties on unpaid volumetric water rates and delegates authority to the Group Manager Corporate Services to apply them:

·    a charge of 5% of the amount of each volumetric water rate account remaining unpaid after the due date stated above, to be added on the penalty date as shown in the above table and also shown on each volumetric water rate account.

Penalty Remission

In accordance with Council’s rate remission policy, the Council will approve the remission of the penalty added on instalment one due to late payment provided the total annual rates are paid in full by 20 November 2020. If full payment of the annual rates is not paid by 20 November 2020 the penalties relating to the first instalment outlined above will apply.

The above penalties will not be charged where Council has agreed to a programme for payment of outstanding rates.

The Group Manager Corporate Services is given discretion to remit rates penalties either in whole or part in accordance with Council’s approved rates remission policy, as may be amended from time to time.

Discount on Rates

Pursuant to Section 55 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the Council will allow a discount of 2.0 percent of the total rates (excluding volumetric water rates) where a ratepayer pays the year’s rates in full on or before the Last Date for Payment for instalment one being 20 August 2020.

Payment of Rates

The rates shall be payable at the Council offices, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson between the hours of 8.30am to 5.00pm Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday and 9.00am to 5.00pm Wednesday.

Where any payment is made by a ratepayer that is less than the amount now payable, the Council will apply the payment firstly to any rates outstanding from previous rating years and then proportionately across all current year rates due.”

O'Neill-Stevens/Courtney                                                                  Carried

Resolved CL/2020/106

That the Council

3.     Resolves that the budget for the 2020/21 financial year is not a balanced budget because operating revenues are not at a level sufficient to meet 2020/21 operating expenses primarily due to the loan funding of the Waimea Dam grant and Nelson Plan costs signalled in the Consultation Document, and loan funding of the net zero percent rates increase; and

4.     Resolves that setting an unbalanced budget for 2020/21 is prudent in terms of section 101 of the Local Government Act 2002 given the current COVID-19 pandemic and its effects, both known and potential, on the local economy and its ratepayers, having had regard to the matters in section 100(2) of the Local Government Act 2002.

Sanson/Fulton                                                                                   Carried

Resolved CL/2020/107

That the Council

5.     Adopts the Annual Plan 2020/21 (A2409905) pursuant to Section 95 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

6.     Delegates the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Chief Executive to make any necessary minor editorial amendments prior to the release of the Annual Plan 2020/21 to the public.

Brand/McGurk                                                                                   Carried

Resolved CL/2020/108

That the Council

7.     Sets the following rates under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, on rating units in the district for the financial year commencing on 1 July 2020 and ending on 30 June 2021.

The revenue approved below will be raised by the rates and charges that follow.

Revenue approved:

General Rate                                                              $41,032,974

Uniform Annual General Charge                                 $9,128,635

Stormwater and Flood Protection Charge                 $6,228,870

Waste Water Charge                                                    $8,814,058

Water Annual Charge                                                  $3,721,307

Water Volumetric Charge                                            $8,683,050

Clean Heat Warm Homes and Solar Saver                    $208,000

Rates and Charges (excluding GST)                        $77,816,894

Goods and Services Tax
(at the current rate)                                                  $11,672,534

Total Rates and Charges                                           $89,489,428

The rates and charges below are GST inclusive.

(1) General Rate

A general rate set under section 13 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential land value basis as described below:

   a rate of 0.51973 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “residential – single unit” category.

·    a rate of 0.51973 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “residential empty section” category.

·    a rate of 0.57170 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “single residential unit forming part of a parent valuation, the remainder of which is non-rateable” category. This represents a plus 10% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 0.57170 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “multi residential” category. This represents a plus 10% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 1.47642 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty) category. This represents a plus 184.075% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 1.23748 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a plus 138.1% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 0.99788 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a plus 92% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 0.75881 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a plus 46% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 1.57772 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city” subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty) category. This represents a plus 203.565% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 1.31336 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a plus 152.7% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 1.04882 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a plus 101.8% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 0.78427 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a plus 50.9% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 1.51501 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty)” category. This represents a plus 191.5% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 1.26606 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a plus 143.6% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 1.01763 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a plus 95.8% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 0.76868 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a plus 47.9% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 0.33782 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “rural” category. This represents a minus 35% differential on land value.

·    a rate of 0.46776 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “small holding” category. This represents a minus 10% differential on land value.

(2) Uniform Annual General Charge

A uniform annual general charge under section 15 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $434.64 per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit.

(3) Stormwater and Flood Protection Charge

A targeted rate under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $335.36 per rating unit, this rate is payable by all ratepayers excluding rural rating units, rating units east of the Gentle Annie saddle, Saxton’s Island and Council’s stormwater network.

(4) Waste Water Charge

A targeted rate for waste water disposal under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of:

·     $477.33 per separately used or inhabited part of a residential, multi residential, rural and small holding rating units that is connected either directly or through a private drain to a public waste water drain.

·     For commercial rating units, a waste water charge of $119.33 per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit that is connected either directly or through a private drain to a public waste water drain. Note:  a “trade” waste charge will also be levied.

(5) Water Annual Charge

A targeted rate for water supply under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of:

Water charge (per connection)                      $200.60

(6) Water Volumetric Rate

A targeted rate for water provided under Section 19 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of:

Price of water:

Usage up to 10,000 cu.m/year                $2.092 per m³

Usage from 10,001 – 100,000 cu.m/year                                                                        ³                                                                 $2.006 per m3

Usage over 100,000 cu.m/year                $1.584 per m³

Summer irrigation usage over

10,000 cu.m/year                                      $2.049 per m³

(7) Clean Heat Warm Homes

A targeted rate per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit that has been provided with home insulation and/or a heater to replace a non-complying solid fuel burner under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 in accordance with agreement of the original ratepayer, of:

·     For properties assessed the Clean Heat Warm Homes rate as a result of agreements entered into on or after 1 July 2011, the targeted rate for each year for 10 years will be the total cost of the installed works excluding GST, divided by 10, plus GST.

·     For properties assessed the Clean Heat Warm Homes rate as a result of agreements entered into prior to 1 July 2011 the targeted rate of:

 

Loan Assistance Range

Installation after
30 Sept 2010

Completed prior to
30 Sept 2010

$1,400 to $1,599

$140.00

$143.11

$1,600 to $1,799

$160.00

$163.56

$1,800 to $1,999

$180.00

$184.00

$2,000 to $2,199

$200.00

$204.44

$2,200 to $2,399

$220.00

$224.89

$2,400 to $2,599

$240.00

$245.34

$2,600 to $2,799

$260.00

$265.78

$2,800 to $2,999

$280.00

$286.22

$3,000 to $3,199

$300.00

$306.67

$3,200 to $3,399

$320.00

$327.11

$3,400 to $3,599

$340.00

$347.56

$3,600 to $3,799

$360.00

$368.00

$3,800 to $3,999

$380.00

$388.44

$4,000 to $4,199

$400.00

$408.89

$4,200 to $4,399

$420.00

$429.34

$4,400 to $4,599

$440.00

$449.78

$4,600 to $4,799

$460.00

$470.22

$4,800 to $4,999

$480.00

$490.67

(8) Solar Hot Water Systems

A targeted rate for any separately used or inhabited parts of a rating unit that has been provided with financial assistance to install a solar hot water system under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 in accordance with agreement of the original ratepayer, of the following factors on the extent of provision of service (net cost of the work including GST after deducting EECA grant, plus funding cost):

·     0.14964 (including GST) for agreements entered into prior to 1 July 2011, multiplied by the Net Cost of the Work adjusted for any increased GST.

·     0.13847 (including GST) for agreements entered into after 1 July 2011 multiplied by the Net Cost of the Work.

Other Rating Information:

Due Dates for Payment of Rates

The above rates (excluding water volumetric rates) are payable at the Nelson City Council office, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson and shall be payable in four instalments on the following dates:

 

Instalment Number

Instalment Due Date

Last Date for Payment

Penalty Date

Instalment 1

1 August 2020

20 August 2020

26 August 2020

Instalment 2

1 November 2020

20 November 2020

26 November 2020

Instalment 3

1 February 2021

20 February 2021

26 February 2021

Instalment 4

1 May 2021

20 May 2021

26 May 2021

Rates instalments not paid on or by the Last Date for payment above will incur penalties as detailed in the section “Penalty on Rates”.

Due Dates for Payment of Water Volumetric Rates

Residential water volumetric rates are payable at the Nelson City Council office, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson and shall be payable on the following dates:

 

Billing Month

Last Date for Payment

Penalty Date

July 2020

21 September 2020

25 September 2020

August 2020

21 September 2020

25 September 2020

September 2020

20 October 2020

26 October 2020

October 2020

21 December 2020

11 January 2021

November 2020

21 December 2020

11 January 2021

December 2020

20 January 2021

26 January 2021

January 2021

22 March 2021

26 March 2021

February 2021

22 March 2021

26 March 2021

March 2021

20 April 2021

26 April 2021

April 2021

21 June 2021

25 June 2021

May 2021

21 June 2021

25 June 2021

June 2021

20 July 2021

26 July 2021

Special (final) water volumetric rates will be payable 14 days from the invoice date of the special (final) water reading as shown on the water invoice.

Commercial and Industrial water volumetric rates are payable at the Nelson City Council office, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson and shall be payable on the following dates:

Billing Month

Last Date for Payment

Penalty Date

July 2020

20 August 2020

26 August 2020

August 2020

21 September 2020

25 September 2020

September 2020

20 October 2020

26 October 2020

October 2020

20 November 2020

26 November 2020

November 2020

21 December 2020

11 January 2021

December 2020

20 January 2021

26 January 2021

January 2021

22 February 2021

26 February 2021

February 2021

22 March 2021

26 March 2021

March 2021

20 April 2021

26 April 2021

April 2021

20 May 2021

26 May 2021

May 2021

21 June 2021

25 June 2021

June 2021

20 July 2021

26 July 2021

Penalty on Rates

Pursuant to Sections 57 and 58 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the council authorises the following penalties on unpaid rates (excluding volumetric water rate accounts) and delegates authority to the Group Manager Corporate Services to apply them:

·    a charge of 5% of the amount of each rate instalment remaining unpaid after the due date stated above, to be added on the penalty date as shown in the above table and also shown on each rate instalment notice.

·    a charge of 5% will be added on 8 July 2020 to any balance from a previous rating year (including penalties previously charged) remaining outstanding on 7 July 2020.

·    a further additional charge of 5% will be added on 8 January 2021 to any balance from a previous rating year (including penalties previously charged) to which a penalty has been added  according to the bullet point above, remaining outstanding on 7 January 2021.

Penalty on Water Volumetric Rates

Pursuant to Sections 57 and 58 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the council authorises the following penalties on unpaid volumetric water rates and delegates authority to the Group Manager Corporate Services to apply them:

 

·    a charge of 5% of the amount of each volumetric water rate account remaining unpaid after the due date stated above, to be added on the penalty date as shown in the above table and also shown on each volumetric water rate account.

Penalty Remission

In accordance with Council’s rate remission policy, the Council will approve the remission of the penalty added on instalment one due to late payment provided the total annual rates are paid in full by 20 November 2020. If full payment of the annual rates is not paid by 20 November 2020 the penalties relating to the first instalment outlined above will apply.

The above penalties will not be charged where Council has agreed to a programme for payment of outstanding rates.

The Group Manager Corporate Services is given discretion to remit rates penalties either in whole or part in accordance with Council’s approved rates remission policy, as may be amended from time to time.

Discount on Rates

Pursuant to Section 55 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the Council will allow a discount of 2.0 percent of the total rates (excluding volumetric water rates) where a ratepayer pays the year’s rates in full on or before the Last Date for Payment for instalment one being 20 August 2020.

Payment of Rates

The rates shall be payable at the Council offices, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson between the hours of 8.30am to 5.00pm Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday and 9.00am to 5.00pm Wednesday.

Where any payment is made by a ratepayer that is less than the amount now payable, the Council will apply the payment firstly to any rates outstanding from previous rating years and then proportionately across all current year rates due.

Sanson/Courtney                                                                              Carried

     

Karakia Whakamutunga

There was a closing karakia.

 

There being no further business the meeting ended at 9.18a.m.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

 

 

 

                                                         Chairperson                                    Date

    

 


 

Item 7: Mayor's Report

 

Council

13 August 2020

 

 

REPORT R18196

Mayor's Report

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1       To update Council on current matters

 

 

 

2.       Recommendation

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Mayor's Report (R18196) and its attachment (A2430907); and

2.     Provides guidance to the Mayor on Councillors’ support for the proposed change to Local Government New Zealand Constitution rule F15 to limit the President’s term of office to two terms.

3.     Provides guidance to the Mayor on Councillors’ support for the proposed remits to the Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting 2020, as discussed.

 

 

3.       Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) Annual General Meeting

    Proposed Rule Change

3.1       At the National Council meeting in July a resolution was passed proposing a change to LGNZ rules for consideration by the members at the upcoming AGM on 21 August 2020.  Rule K1 confers on the National Council the right to propose a rule change.  Pursuant to Rule K4(b), a two-thirds majority of members voting at the AGM is required to pass a rule change proposal.


 

The Proposal

3.2       The proposed rule change would reduce the term limit on the office of the President from three terms to two terms (nine years to six years).

3.3       The term limit was last altered at the Special General Meeting in early 2014 when the term was increased to three terms from two terms.

3.4       The proposed rule change and reads as follows:

Proposal – Change the maximum number of consecutive terms of office of the President from 3 to 2:

3.4.1    Rule F15: Delete the word “three” from the first sentence and replace with the word “two” so that Rule F15 then reads:

3.4.2    “F15      No person may hold office as President for more than two consecutive terms, provided that any person who holds office as President by virtue of an appointment in accordance with Rules F27 to F32 is eligible for re-election at the end of the unexpired term of office of that person’s predecessor. For the avoidance of doubt, a term under this Rule does not include any period of office held by a President by virtue of an appointment in accordance with Rules F27 to F32.”

3.5       Members are asked to provide guidance to the Mayor who will be voting at the AGM on Council’s behalf.

Remits 2020

3.6       The 2020 LGNZ Annual General Meeting (AGM) Remits are attached (A2430907). Remits are sent out as part of the AGM Business Papers prior to the AGM, however to allow time for members to review and discuss these remits they have been attached for reference.

3.7       A total of 13 Remits were considered by the Remit Screening Committee, 11 Remits are to be considered at the AGM. One Remit was referred to the National Council for consideration and one Remit was declined.

3.8       Remits for consideration are:

1. Public transport support

2. Housing affordability

3. Returning GST on rates for councils to spend on infrastructure

4. Natural hazards and climate change adaptation

5. Annual regional balance transfers

6. Local government electoral cycle

7. Water bottling

8. Quorum when attending local authority meetings

9. Use of macrons for local authorities

10. Rates rebate for low income property owners

11. Local Government’s CO2 emissions

3.9       Members are asked to consider the Remits in order to provide guidance to the Mayor who will be voting at the AGM on Council’s behalf.

 

 

Author:           Rachel Reese, Mayor of Nelson

Attachments

Attachment 1:    A2430907 LGNZ 2020 AGM Remits

   


Item 7: Mayor's Report: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Item 8: Council Emission Reduction Targets

 

Council

13 August 2020

 

 

REPORT R17034

Council Emission Reduction Targets

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1       To consider the adoption of a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for Council activities. Several options for such a target are presented, together with the likely implications of each.

2.       Summary

2.1       Recent introduction of national level greenhouse gas emission reduction targets has focussed the Council on the value of adopting its own target. Many New Zealand councils have committed to greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for both their own activities and for their communities as a whole.

2.2       Setting targets for Council emissions reductions is complicated by the fact that responsibility for around 90% of Council emissions sits with the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit. This is overseen by a joint committee with members from both Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council. Reduction targets for those emissions would be set by that Joint Committee. That leaves the approximately 10-15% of Council emissions for which Council alone can set a reduction target.

2.3       Adopting a target for district-wide emissions is not recommended at this time. A comprehensive and nationally consistent approach to measurement and reporting of regional emissions has been developed by government (Statistics NZ). That information will need to be assessed together with the development of any potential targets for regional emissions at a later date.

 

 

3.       Recommendation

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Council Emission Reduction Targets (R17034); and

2.     Agrees that Nelson City Council adopts targets for Council’s own greenhouse gas emissions reductions that are in line with the Government targets (i.e., all GHGs other than biogenic methane achieve net zero emissions by 2050); and

3.     Agrees that work is undertaken to develop specific emission reduction projects for inclusion in the Long Term Plan 2021-31, along with development of a comprehensive Council “Emissions Reduction Action Plan” in line with timeframes to produce the upcoming Long Term Plan; and

4.     Notes that work to set targets and reduce emissions in the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit is critical to address Council’s entire emissions profile and that substantial work is already underway in the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit to measure and reduce emissions.

 

 

4.       Background

4.1       The Council workshop held on 12 May 2020 outlined the intention to set targets for Council greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Council’s commitment to the CEMARS (certified emissions measurement and reduction scheme – now renamed Toitū) has required the Council to adopt an interim emissions reduction target for Council’s operational emissions (5% reduction over the five-year period from 2018-2023). This report provides additional detail and outlines a range of options for setting targets for reducing the Council’s own GHG emissions.

4.2       No recommendation is made here for adopting targets for district-wide emissions reductions. Statistics NZ (Stats NZ) has now produced new GHG inventories for all regions/districts, which has been provided to elected members. In its reporting Stats NZ combines the Nelson and Tasman districts, but has indicated that it may be possible to separate these in future reports. Officers consider that any target-setting for Nelson-wide emissions should be based on a sound assessment of these regional emissions and their sources, together with a community-backed approach to achieving reductions in line with any proposed Council targets. Work in support of reducing GHG emissions in the wider community is being led by the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum.

4.3       Nelson City Council’s own GHG emissions (based on the CEMARS/Toitū inventory report) equate to about 20,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per annum (including the Council’s 50% share of landfill emissions). This represents only a small proportion (about 5%) of total emissions for the Nelson region (based on a 2008 city-wide inventory).

4.4       Emissions from the York Valley Landfill (jointly owned by Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council) makes up a large proportion of the Council’s total emissions (typically 85-90%). Because these landfill emissions are under the control of a separate business unit (the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit – NTRLBU) setting an emissions reduction target for those activities would require agreement from the NTRLBU Joint Committee. A similar situation exists for emissions from the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit (NRSBU). This report deals only with emission reductions targets for the remaining 10-15% of Council’s operational emissions.

4.5       Tasman District Council has already adopted the Government targets for its own emissions reductions. Consistency between the two councils will be an important platform for agreement on any landfill emissions reduction target that is proposed.

4.6       There are many reasons why Council should be making concerted efforts to reduce its own emissions:

4.6.1    Council must do its part in contributing to the global issue of GHG emissions reduction, and thus help to avoid the negative impacts that high GHG concentrations will cause.

4.6.2    In most cases reducing emissions will also result in cost savings, particularly important as increasing pressure comes on Council budgets during the recovery from the effects of COVID-19.

4.6.3    Reducing emissions in Council activities is a key leadership activity, demonstrating commitment to responding effectively to the climate emergency and providing the tools and expertise to assist other organisations in the wider Nelson community with their reduction efforts.

4.7       It is also worth noting that Council previously approved the Local Action Plan for Climate Protection (October 2008) which incorporated emissions reductions for both Council activities and those of the community under the Communities for Climate Protection (CCP) Programme. For Council’s own emissions the medium term (2012) target was to stabilise emissions at 2004 levels, while the long-term target (2020) was to reduce emissions to 40% below the 2004 levels.

4.8       The CCP programme was discontinued in New Zealand in 2009, so Nelson City Council (along with other councils) was unable to continue its involvement in the programme past that point.

5.       Discussion

            The National targets

5.1       In November 2019 the Government set two new domestic targets for GHG emissions reductions under the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act:

5.1.1    net zero emissions of all GHGs other than biogenic methane by 2050

5.1.2    24 to 47 per cent reduction below 2017 biogenic methane emissions by 2050, including 10 per cent reduction below 2017 biogenic methane emissions by 2030.

5.2       There are several important aspects of these domestic targets to consider:

5.2.1    Several different targets: Emissions of biogenic (i.e., produced through biological processes) methane have a lower target than for other GHGs. These emissions are mainly from farm animals, but also as a by-product of waste disposal and waste-water treatment (i.e., includes emissions from both our landfill and wastewater activities – though wastewater activities also emit nitrous oxide and carbon-dioxide). A separate target for biogenic methane is in recognition of the fact that it is currently extremely challenging to eradicate methane emissions from those sources, and particularly difficult for the agriculture sector. Methane emissions from livestock make up a large portion of New Zealand’s total emissions (typically around 50%). In addition, there is an ‘interim’ target for biogenic methane (10% reduction by 2030), and a broad target range (24-47% by 2050) reflecting the uncertainty of achievement of these reductions for methane.

5.2.2    Net and gross emissions: Gross emissions are all of those that come from emitting activities, such as those generated by the burning of fossil fuels. Net emissions are the result of subtracting carbon-dioxide removed from the atmosphere by activities such as growing forests. The first target (5.1.1) is based on net emissions (i.e., it allows for forestry removals), while the second target (5.1.2) is based on gross (biological methane) emissions only.

5.2.3    The use of a base year: This is needed for the biological methane target because it is calculated as a percentage of that selected year’s emissions. In setting its own target, Council could select an appropriate base year on which to base its reductions. Typically, the earlier the year selected for the base year, the lower the emissions compared with emissions now – making it more challenging to achieve than a more recent year. For other gases (excluding biogenic methane), no base year is required as the target is to achieve net zero emissions by that year.

5.3       In addition to these targets, the government also has international targets that were agreed under the auspices of the United Nations (2016 Paris agreement) and cover all categories of GHGs. These targets will require the New Zealand government to surrender emissions units via the United Nations if they are not met:

5.3.1    5 per cent reduction below 1990 gross emissions for the period 2013-2020

5.3.2    30 per cent reduction below 2005 (or 11 per cent below 1990) gross emissions for the period 2021-2030.

          Achieving the national targets

5.4       Indications are that New Zealand is not on track to directly meet its targets under the Paris Agreement. Emissions are expected to be 5-10% above the target, requiring the Government to pay for the shortfall. The Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act does not introduce any policies to actually cut emissions but rather sets a national-level framework. It is not yet clear how the government will achieve its national targets, but there have been signals that there are likely to be differing expectations for different sectors. This is already apparent from the decision to have two national targets (i.e., more challenging targets for those burning fossil fuels, and less rigorous targets for the agriculture and waste sectors).

5.5       In addition it is likely that government will pursue the development of sector specific budgets (i.e. where there may be a limit on the total amount of emissions allowed for that sector’s activities). Indications are that areas such as the three waters sector (and potentially other local government activity) could be subject to the development of their own emissions targets or budgets.

5.6       For New Zealand to successfully achieve the targeted emissions reduction there is likely to be the need for a range of national level policies (e.g., subsidies, regulation, incentives, etc.). Few such policies or instruments are in place yet, with the NZ Emissions Trading Scheme (NZETS) currently the primary mechanism to achieve reductions.

5.7       Additional initiatives that have been put in place at the national level include the “one billion trees” (by 2030) programme, and the New Zealand Green Investment Fund ($100M to catalyse investment in low-emissions initiatives).

5.8       Other national emissions reduction policies are currently being considered, including vehicle emissions standards (i.e., allowing for import of vehicles meeting a set standard or payment of a fine for not meeting it), and incentives for people to switch to low-emission and electric vehicles, (i.e., the so-called “feebate scheme” where fees are charged for high emission vehicles, and passed on to those purchasing low emission vehicles).

          The Emissions Trading Scheme and offsetting emissions

5.9       Part of the approach that other councils are taking to meet their emission reduction targets is to offset emissions that are unable to be effectively reduced. Indeed, this is the way that some councils intend to achieve their carbon zero targets and meet challenging and shorter time-frame reduction targets.

5.10     For activities that occur under the umbrella of the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZETS) there is a requirement to surrender NZ emissions units (NZUs) to the government equal to the ‘carbon-equivalent’ level of emissions. Figure 1 outlines the general approach to emissions trading under the NZETS.

Figure 1: The basic concept of New Zealand's ETS (Ministry for the Environment)

5.11     For many councils (primarily territorial or unitary authorities) their obligations include emissions from landfill activities. However, the purchase and surrendering of NZUs under the NZETS does not result in offsetting of the emissions, because the surrendered units remain in circulation. It is only when such units are cancelled (removed from circulation by government) that an offset is deemed to occur.

5.12     Claiming a status of “carbon zero” is therefore challenging, in part because of the potential for double counting (i.e., counted both against a national target and as a voluntary offset).

5.13     The intent of the NZETS is to incentivise behaviour change by increasing the price of emissions intensive activities. Typically landfill operators will pass on the costs of their NZETS obligations to users.

5.14     Other emissions-intensive activities are also subject to surrendering units under the NZETS, this includes stationary energy, industrial processes, liquid fossil fuels and agriculture sectors. Forestry activities can also earn carbon credits. Work is currently underway to investigate Council’s eligibility for earning carbon credits from its indigenous forestry land holdings.

          The Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit

5.15     The NTRLBU has established that regional landfill operations are more efficient (i.e., lower emissions) than the standard Ministry for the Environment default emissions factor. This is due to methane gas capture which is used for heating at Nelson hospital. Use of this “unique emissions factor” has led to NZETS cost savings for Nelson City Council of around $500,000 per annum (i.e., our 50% share), achieved for the period since January 2019.

5.16     Nelson City Council’s 50% share of landfill emission obligations (via the NTRLBU) under the NZETS each year is recovered through landfill fees.  The NTRLBU business plan for 2020/21 indicates that Council’s half share is expected to be $722,000.

5.17     Offsetting obligations will increase as the projected carbon price increases (thus making further emissions reductions more attractive). Current changes to the NZETS legislation have the effect of increasing the fixed price of carbon from $25 to $35 per tonne. Prices are projected to reach at least $50 per tonne by 2030 (with a high-end estimate of $150 per tonne). With current levels of waste, the Council’s share of the NZETS obligation for the NTRLBU under such scenarios would be around $1.4M (at $50 per tonne) and around $4.3M per annum (at $150 per tonne).

5.18     Increasing costs under the NZETS, together with hikes in the Government’s Waste Levy provide strong incentives for waste reduction, diversion of organic waste, and methane capture. The NTRLBU and both of the Councils are focussed on a range of such activities and opportunities.

5.19     The Council is able to access funding via the Waste Management Fund, which can be used for activities such as analysis of waste content to establish the likely resulting GHG emissions. The bulk of the upcoming funding is likely to be directed toward an organic waste trial, critical to the success of addressing waste emissions. In addition, Council’s Climate Change Reserve has provided $120,000 toward a trial to determine potential improvements in collection and treatment of food waste.

5.20     The wider national context is likely to lead to increasing opportunities for emissions reduction over time. For example the Government’s Waste Levy is set to increase from $10 per tonne of waste to $50-60 per tonne by 2023. In the meantime the costs of offsetting may be quite considerable (particularly if Council were to adopt an earlier carbon zero date) and present a liability for Council that would need to be accounted for. These costs would be additional to the NZETS commitments as discussed above.

          Reducing Council emissions

5.21     The first step for Nelson City Council is to identify what level of emission reductions can be achieved for its own activities, over what time period, and at what cost.

5.22     Development of an Emissions Reduction Action Plan will be proposed as a project for the Long Term Plan 2021-31 (LTP). It will involve incorporating existing or proposed emissions reduction activities (e.g., those indicated within Activity Management Plans), including new initiatives to reduce emissions, and estimating the quantum of reductions that might be delivered through potential government initiatives. That work is expected to take 12-18 months to complete.

5.23     In the interim it is proposed that additional specific emission reduction projects are also identified for inclusion in the LTP, where they have a high cost-benefit ratio, or demonstrate a strong environmental management/leadership approach.

5.24     Some councils have adopted emissions reduction targets that go beyond the Government targets. A selection of council operational targets in New Zealand is shown in Table 1 below:

Council

Organisational Target(s)

Dunedin City Council

Net zero carbon emissions by 2030*

Christchurch City Council

Net zero emissions by 2030

Auckland City Council

40% reduction by 2040 (based on 1990 levels)

Wellington City Council

80% reduction before 2050 (based on 2014 levels)

Table 1: Selected council’s organisational emissions reduction targets (* excludes methane)

5.25     One point to note from Table 1 is that other councils typically do not include separate targets for biogenic methane (as the national target does). Instead, their target is either only for the other GHGs (i.e., excluding biogenic methane emissions), or incorporate all GHGs.

5.26     The use of a single target for all GHGs suggests that those councils may be challenged to meet net zero emissions without considerable investment in offsetting, given the difficulty of achieving reductions in biogenic methane.

5.27     Some councils have in the past set ambitious targets that they have been unable to meet, suggesting that their targets were not sufficiently linked to relevant actions, and that better information is needed. It is also worth noting that some councils that previously adopted targets for achieving carbon zero status later removed such targets when they realised the cost implications and uncertainty in future carbon prices.

5.28     There are increasing moves to collaborate across councils in the area of climate change, including sharing resources and working toward consistency of approaches. This aims to address the fact that, despite efforts to improve collaboration, there is still a high level of duplication in work between councils.

5.29     A recent national-level initiative to encourage collaboration between councils on climate change work has involved funding from the regional sector, with additional funding being sought from territorial authorities, as well as the possibility of government funding being investigated.

6.       Options

6.1       Because the vast majority of Council biogenic methane emissions are attributable to landfill activities (managed jointly with Tasman District Council), it is proposed that Council only adopt a single target (for all other GHGs) at this point. The Joint Committee of the NTRLBU is the body that would approve reduction targets for biogenic methane emissions from landfill. Similarly the Joint Committee of the NRSBU is the body that would approve reduction targets for all emissions (methane, nitrous oxide and carbon-dioxide) from wastewater activities.

6.2       Three options are explored here, with the preferred option being to agree to a target that is consistent with the Government target (i.e., reduce non-methane emissions to net zero by 2050). There is a compelling case for lining up Council’s targets with both Tasman District Council and Government targets as much as possible, recognising the high level of partnership that will be required with both these parties in order to achieve meaningful emission reductions.

6.3       The second option is to not adopt a target at this point, which would allow for Council to assess proposed emission reductions activities (both its own and those proposed or introduced by Government) prior to reconsidering the adoption of a Council target at a later date. This option would suggest the need to revisit existing commitments to meeting emissions reductions for Council operations under the CEMARS (now Toitū) programme.

6.4       The third option is to adopt a challenging but still realistic target. It is suggested that such a target could be: net zero emissions of all GHGs other than biogenic methane by 2045. This provides for achievement of the government target five years ahead of their deadline, and is conceptually easier to understand than a percentage target that requires the use of a base year.

 

Option 1: Council sets an emissions reduction target (for all GHGs other than biogenic methane) in-line with the government target (achieving net zero emissions of all GHGs other than biogenic methane by 2050)       RECOMMENDED

Advantages

·    Provides consistency with the national level target

·    Allows for review and taking on increased ambition at a later date

·    Any emissions offsetting costs that may be required to reach net zero emissions are minimised.

Risks and Disadvantages

·    May be seen by some parts of the community as not sufficiently ambitious.

Option 2: Do not take on a target for Council operations at this time, but reconsider at a later date

Advantages

·    Allows for setting a target at a later date when more information is available, including emissions reductions opportunities and evolving government policy

·    Allows for a focus on the largest proportion of Council emissions – from landfill activities

·    Does not commit the Council to potentially costly emissions offsetting.

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Council already has an ‘internal’ target under the CEMARS/Toitū programme, which would need to be reviewed if targets were not being adopted at this time

·    May be viewed as not taking a strong and ambitious leadership position.

Option 3: Council sets an emissions reduction target (for all GHGs other than biogenic methane) for achieving net zero emissions by 2045

Advantages

·    Taking on a challenging target provides an incentive for work to be accelerated to achieve the target.

Risks and Disadvantages

·    May not be achievable until a more supportive regulatory environment is in place

·    Could commit Council to considerable liabilities to offset emissions

·    Setting an aspirational target and failing to meet it or milestones towards it could result in lost credibility and community commitment.

7.       Conclusion

7.1       This report has identified a range of considerations and complexities related to setting a Council emissions reduction target.

7.2       A core issue is that Council can only set a reduction target for emissions within its direct control, and these make up only 10-15% of total emissions. 85-90% of Council emissions come from landfill activities managed by the NTRLBU.

7.3       Until such time as clear pathways and cost implications for a range of emission reductions are identified, it is recommended that Council adopt targets that are consistent with government commitments.

 

Author:           Chris Cameron, Climate Change Champion

Attachments

Nil

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Consideration of emission reduction targets and activities to achieve reductions promotes the economic, environmental and social wellbeing of the community.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The funding proposed supports the following community outcomes:

  - Our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, a regional perspective, and community engagement.

- Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected

- Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient

- Our region is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy

3.   Risk

 The recommended option provides for Council to make additional decisions at a later date based on a much broader assessment of what is achievable and affordable. A key risk relates to public perception, where the recommended target may be seen as insufficient by some sectors of the community. Clear messaging about the complexities and the basis for the decision would be an appropriate mitigating action. Setting a more ambitious target and then not achieving relevant milestones would introduce another set of risks around loss of credibility and the undermining of confidence within the community about Nelson’s ability to make progress on tackling climate change.

4.   Financial impact

Adopting the government target will expose the Council to the cost of offsetting any remaining emissions in 2050. This is likely to become a mandatory requirement. Adopting a more ambitious target would expose the Council to higher costs that may not be warranted if funding can instead be spent on achieving further emissions reductions.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement

The recommended decision is of low significance as it is in line with government legislation and no engagement is proposed. Setting a more ambitious target would have more significant financial implications that could lead to an assessment of greater significance. Consultation on the financial implications of actions to achieve targets can be undertaken through future processes such as the Long Term Plan consultation.

6.   Climate Impact

Achieving tangible and sustained emissions reductions is essential if Nelson is to meet the government target of being carbon zero by 2050. Ideally, Council would be well ahead of the 2050 date in achieving zero carbon, but needs to better understand the costs and the level of reductions that are associated with such action.

7.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report.

8.   Delegations

The Environment Committee has the following delegations to consider climate change:

Areas of Responsibility:

·      4.4.1 – Climate change resilience overview (adaptation and mitigation)

Delegations:

·      5.4.2 – Developing, approving, monitoring and reviewing policies and plans, including activity management plans

However, as the impact of emissions targets will affect all areas of Council operations, the matter is considered to cross Committee delegations and is referred to Council for consideration.

 

 


 

Item 9: Three Waters Programme Investment Package

 

Council

13 August 2020

 

 

REPORT R19214

Three Waters Programme Investment Package

     

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1       To agree to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Crown, agreeing to participate in the initial stage of a central/local government three waters service delivery reform programme (Attachment 1); and

1.2       To agree to sign a Funding Agreement, to accept a grant from the Crown to spend on operating and/or capital expenditure relating to three waters infrastructure and service delivery (Attachment 2).

2.       Summary

2.1       In July 2020, the Government announced a $761 million funding package to provide post COVID-19 stimulus to maintain and improve three waters infrastructure, support a three-year programme of reform of local government water service delivery arrangements (reform programme), and support the establishment of Taumata Arowai, the new Waters Services Regulator.

2.2       A Joint Central/Local Government Three Waters Steering Committee has been established to provide oversight and guidance to support progress towards reform, and to assist in engaging with local government, iwi/Māori, and other water sector stakeholders on options and proposals.

2.3       The reform programme is designed to support economic recovery, and address persistent systemic issues facing the three waters sector, through a combination of:

2.3.1    stimulating investment, to assist economic recovery through job creation, and maintain investment in water infrastructure renewals and maintenance; and

2.3.2    reforming current water service delivery, into larger scale providers, to realise significant economic, public health, environmental, and other benefits over the medium to long term.

2.4       Initial funding from the stimulus package will be made available to those councils that agree to participate in the first stage of the reform programme, through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), Funding Agreement, and approved Delivery Plan. The MoU must be signed by the end of August 2020, with the Funding Agreement and Delivery Plan submitted and approved by the end of September 2020.

 

3.       Recommendation

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Three Waters Programme Investment Package (R19214) and its attachments (A2436659, A2436658, A2436660, A2436656 and A2436662); and

2.     Authorises the Mayor and Chief Executive sign the Memorandum of Understanding at Attachment One (A2436659) and Funding Agreement at Attachment Two (A2436658); and

3.     Agrees to nominate the Mayor and Chief Executive as the primary point of communication for the purposes of the Memorandum of Understanding and reform programme – as referred to on page 6 of the Memorandum of Understanding (A2436659); and

4.     Agrees to delegate decisions about the allocation of regional funding to the Mayor, Chair of Infrastructure and the Chief Executive, with the understanding that the minimum level of funding to the Council be based upon the formula used to calculate the direct council allocations, and noting that participation by two-thirds of territorial authorities within the Nelson, Tasman, and Marlborough region is required to access the regional allocation; and

5.     Notes that the Memorandum of Understanding and Funding Agreement cannot be amended or modified by either party, and doing so would void these documents; and

6.     Notes that participation in this initial stage is to be undertaken in good faith, but this is a non-binding approach, and the Council can opt out of the reform process at the end of the term of the agreement (as provided for on page 5 of the Memorandum of Understanding); and

7.     Notes that the Council has been allocated $2.86 million of funding, which will be received as a grant as soon as practicable once the signed Memorandum of Understanding and Funding Agreement are returned to the Department of Internal Affairs, and a Delivery Plan has been supplied and approved (as described on page 5 of the Memorandum of Understanding).  An additional $2.86 million will also be allocated to Nelson out of the Regional allocation if this is split in the way recommended by the Steering Committee; and

8.     Notes that the Delivery Plan must show that the funding is to be applied to operating and/or capital expenditure relating to three waters infrastructure and service delivery, and which:

·        supports economic recovery through job creation; and

·         maintains, increases, and/or accelerates investment in core water infrastructure renewal and maintenance.

 

 

4.       Background

          Issues facing the three waters system and rationale for reform

4.1       Over the past three years, central and local government have been considering the issues and opportunities facing the system for regulating and managing the three waters (drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater).

4.2       The Government Inquiry into Havelock North Drinking Water – set up following the serious campylobacter outbreak in 2016 – identified widespread, systemic failure of suppliers to meet the standards required for the safe supply of drinking water to the public. It made a number of urgent and longer-term recommendations to address these significant systemic and regulatory failures.

4.3       The Government’s Three Waters Review highlighted that, in many parts of the country, communities cannot be confident that drinking water is safe, or that good environmental outcomes are being achieved. This work also raised concerns about the regulation, sustainability, capacity and capability of a system with a large number of localised providers, many of which are funded by relatively small populations.

4.4       The local government sector’s own work has highlighted similar issues. For example, in 2014, LGNZ identified an information gap relating to three waters infrastructure. A 2015 position paper, argued for a refresh of the regulatory framework to ensure delivery of quality drinking water and wastewater services, and outlined what stronger performance in the three waters sector would look like.

4.5       Both central and local government acknowledge that there are many challenges facing the delivery of water services and infrastructure, and the communities that fund and rely on these services. These challenges include:

4.5.1    Underinvestment in three waters infrastructure in parts of the country, and substantial infrastructure deficits. For example, it is estimated that between $300 and $570 million is required to upgrade networked drinking water treatment plants to meet drinking water standards; and up to $4 billion is required to upgrade wastewater plants to meet new consent requirements. These deficits are likely to be underestimates, given the variable quality of asset management data.

4.5.2    Persistent funding and affordability challenges, particularly for communities with small rating bases, or high-growth areas that have reached their prudential borrowing limits.

4.5.3    Additional investment required to increase public confidence in the safety of drinking water, improve freshwater outcomes, and as a critical component of a collective response to climate change and increasing resilience of local communities.

4.6       COVID-19 has made the situation even more challenging. Prior to COVID-19, territorial authorities were planning on spending $8.3 billion in capital over the next five years on water infrastructure. However, COVID-19 is likely to cause significant decreases in revenue in the short term. As a result, borrowing will be constrained due to lower debt limits that flow from lower revenues, and opportunities to raise revenue through rates, fees and charges will be limited.

            Progress with three waters regulatory reforms

4.7       Good progress is already being made to address the regulatory issues that were raised by the Havelock North Inquiry and Three Waters Review. The Government is implementing a package of reforms to the three waters regulatory system, which are designed to:

4.7.1    improve national-level leadership, oversight, and support relating to the three waters – through the creation of Taumata Arowai, a new, dedicated Water Services Regulator;

4.7.2    significantly strengthen compliance, monitoring, and enforcement relating to drinking water regulation;

4.7.3    manage risks to drinking water safety and ensure sources of drinking water are protected; and

4.7.4    improve the environmental performance and transparency of wastewater and stormwater networks.

4.8       Legislation to create Taumata Arowai had its third reading on 22 July 2020 and should be enacted shortly.  This new Crown entity is currently being established, and will become responsible for drinking water regulation once a separate Water Services Bill is passed (anticipated mid 2021).

4.9       However, both central and local government acknowledge that regulatory reforms alone will not be sufficient to address many of the persistent issues facing the three waters system. Reforms to service delivery and funding arrangements also need to be explored.

5.       Discussion

Proposal – central/local government three waters reform programme

Overview of proposed approach to three waters investment and service delivery reform

5.1       At the recent Central/Local Government Forum, central and local government leadership discussed the challenges facing New Zealand’s water service delivery and infrastructure, and committed to working jointly on reform. A Joint Central/Local Government Three Waters Steering Committee has been established to provide oversight and guidance to support this work. Further details are provided in Attachment Five.

5.2       Central and local government consider it is timely to apply targeted infrastructure stimulus investment to enable improvements to water service delivery, progress service delivery reform in partnership, and ensure the period of economic recovery following COVID-19 supports a transition to a productive, sustainable economy.

5.3       In July 2020, the Government announced an initial funding package of $761 million to provide post COVID-19 stimulus, support a three-year programme of reform of local government water service delivery arrangements, and support the establishment and operation of Taumata Arowai.

5.4       The reform programme is designed to support economic recovery, and address persistent systemic issues facing the three waters sector, through a combination of:

5.4.1    stimulating investment, to assist economic recovery through job creation, and maintain investment in water infrastructure renewals and maintenance; and

5.4.2    reforming current water service delivery, into larger scale providers, to realise significant economic, public health, environmental, and other benefits over the medium to long term.

5.5       While the Government’s starting intention is for publicly-owned multi-regional models for water service delivery (with a preference for local authority ownership), final decisions on a service delivery model will be informed by discussion with the local government sector and the work of the Joint Steering Committee.

5.6       Further information on the reform objectives, and the core design features of any new service delivery model, are provided in pages 3 to 4 of the MoU at Attachment One.

          Reform process and indicative timetable

5.7       As noted above, this is a three-year programme to reform three waters service delivery arrangements, which is being delivered in conjunction with an economic stimulus package of Crown investment in water infrastructure. The reform programme will be undertaken in stages.

5.8       The initial stage is an opt in, non-binding approach, which involves councils taking the actions and signing the documents described below (MoU, Funding Agreement, and Delivery Plan). Councils that agree to opt in by the end of August 2020 will receive a share of the initial funding package. Any further tranches of funding will be at the discretion of the Government and may depend on progress against reform objectives.

5.9       An indicative timetable for the full reform programme is provided below. While this is subject to change as the reforms progress, and subject to future Government budget decisions, it provides an overview of the longer-term reform pathway.

          Allocation of the investment package

5.10     The Government has determined a notional allocation framework based on a nationally-consistent formula.  The general approach to determining each authority's notional allocation is based on a formula that gives weight to two main factors:

5.10.1  The population in the relevant council area, as a proxy for the number of water connections serviced by a territorial authority (75 per cent weighting)

5.10.2  The land area covered by a local authority excluding national parks, as a proxy for the higher costs per connection of providing water services in areas with low population density (25 per cent weighting).

5.11     The investment package is structured into two components:

5.11.1  A direct allocation to each territorial authority, comprising 50% of that territorial authority's notional allocation; and

5.11.2  A regional allocation, comprising the sum of the remaining 50% of the notional allocations for each territorial authority in the relevant region.

5.12     The relevant allocations for Nelson City are:

Region

Territorial Authority

TA allocation ($m)

6.       Regional allocation ($m)

Total ($m)

Te Tauihu

Tasman District

4.89

14.01

28.02

Nelson City

2.86

Marlborough District

6.26

6.1       The purpose of the Government’s regional allocation is to establish collective participation by councils in the reform programme. Each regional group of councils has until 30 September 2020 to agree on how best to apportion the regional funds to the individual territorial authorities that make up the region.

6.2       The Steering Committee has recommended a preferred approach to the allocation of regional funding, being the same formula that is used to determine the direct allocations to territorial authorities.

6.3       Officers recommend delegating decisions about the allocation of regional funding to the Mayor, Chair of Infrastructure and Chief Executive, with the understanding that the minimum level of funding to the Council be based upon the formula used to calculate the direct council allocations, and noting that participation by two-thirds of territorial authorities within the Nelson, Tasman, and Marlborough region is required to access the regional allocation.

What actions are the Council being asked to take at this point?

6.4       The initial stage of the reform programme involves three core elements:

6.4.1    Memorandum of Understanding (Attachment One);

6.4.2    Funding Agreement (Attachment Two);

6.4.3    Delivery Plan (Attachment Three).

6.5       Initial funding will be made available to those councils that sign the MoU, and associated Funding Agreement, and provide a Delivery Plan. This initial funding will be provided in two components: a direct allocation to individual councils, and a regional allocation. The participating councils in each region are required to agree an approach to distributing the regional allocation. Each regional group must agree the funding allocation between local authorities within the region and send a joint letter from the Mayors to the Minister of Local Government.

6.6       The MoU is the ‘opt in’ to the first stage of the reform and stimulus programme. The MoU needs to be signed and submitted by the end of August 2020. The Funding Agreement and Delivery Plan need to be submitted by the end of September 2020, to access the stimulus funding.

6.7       Councils that do not opt in by the end August 2020 deadline will not receive a share of the stimulus funding. Councils will still be able to opt in to the reform programme at a later date, but will not have access to the initial funding package, retrospectively.

          Memorandum of Understanding

6.8       A MoU has been developed by the Steering Group, for each council to enter into with the Crown. This is a standardised document, which cannot be amended or modified by either party. Signing the MoU commits councils to:

6.8.1    engage in the first stage of the reform programme – including a willingness to accept the reform objectives and the core design features set out in the MoU;

6.8.2    the principles of working together with central government and the Steering Committee;

6.8.3    work with neighbouring councils to consider the creation of multi-regional entities;

6.8.4    share information and analysis on their three waters assets and service delivery arrangements.

6.9       At this point, this is a voluntary, non-binding commitment. It does not require councils to commit to future phases of the reform programme, to transfer their assets and/or liabilities, or establish new water entities. The MoU is effective from the date of agreement until 30 June 2021, unless terminated by agreement or by replacement with another document relating to the reform programme.

6.10     A legal opinion by Simpson Grierson, commissioned by SOLGM on behalf of the Steering Committee, advises that the MoU does not contain any explicit triggers for consultation under the Local Government Act 2002. (Refer to Attachment Four)

          Funding Agreement

6.11     This Council has been allocated $2.86 million by the Crown, if it opts in to the reform programme. A further $14.01 million has been allocated to the Nelson, Tasman, and Marlborough region to agree an appropriate distribution between participating Councils. This funding will be provided as a grant, which does not need to be repaid if the Council does not ultimately commit to reform at later stages of the process.

6.12     There are several options for how the regional funding could be allocated between councils. The joint central-local government Three Waters Steering Committee preferred approach is to apply the same formula (applying a 75% weighting for population and a 25% weighting for land area, excluding national parks) as used to calculate the direct allocations. Under this approach, the Council would receive an additional $2.86 million, contributing to a total funding allocation of $5.72 million.

6.13     It is recommended that the Council delegates authority to the Mayor, Chair of Infrastructure and Chief Executive to agree an appropriate allocation with other participating councils, with the understanding that the Council share of the regional allocation should be $2.86 million at a minimum, noting that participation by two thirds of territorial authorities within the region is to access the regional funding.  The Funding Agreement is one of the mechanisms for accessing the funding package. Like the MoU, it is a standardised document, for agreement between each council and the Crown. It cannot be amended.

6.14     The Funding Agreement guides the release and use of funding. It sets out:

6.14.1  the funding amount allocated to the Council;

6.14.2  funding conditions;

6.14.3  public accountability requirements, including the Public Finance Act; and

6.14.4  reporting milestones.

6.15     While there is some local flexibility around how the funding can be applied, the Government has indicated that this investment is intended to support economic recovery, enable improvements in water service delivery, and progress the service delivery reform programme. The allocation can be utilised to support Council staff resources needed to implement projects funded under the stimulus package.  The intention is that funding supports economic stimulus and therefore is additional to planned investment.  As a general rule, activities funded in annual plans are not eligible.  However, some expenditure that is included within already approved annual plans may be eligible for funding. For example, where a project was included in the annual plan on the basis of receiving shovel ready funding, but has not done so. 

6.16     The Funding Agreement will be supplemented by a Delivery Plan, which is the document that sets out how the grant funding is to be applied by the Council.

          Delivery Plan

6.17     The Delivery Plan is the other mechanism for accessing the funding package. This Delivery Plan must show that the funding allocation is to be applied to operating and/or capital expenditure relating to three waters infrastructure and service delivery, and which:

6.17.1  supports economic recovery through job creation; and

6.17.2  maintains, increases, and/or accelerates investment in core water infrastructure renewal and maintenance.

6.18     The Delivery Plan is a short-form template, which sets out:

6.18.1  a summary of the works to be funded, including location, estimated associated costs, and expected benefits/outcomes;

6.18.2  the number of people to be employed in these works;

6.18.3  an assessment of how the works support the reform objectives in the MoU;

6.18.4  reporting obligations.

6.19     The Delivery Plan will be supplied to Crown Infrastructure Partners (and other organisations as agreed between the Council and Crown), for review and approval. Crown Infrastructure Partners will monitor progress against the Delivery Plan, to ensure spending has been undertaken with public sector financial management requirements.

6.20     Initial disbursements of 50% of the total funding allocated to each local authority (including the regional allocation) will be released as soon as practicable following the agreement of the MOU, Funding Agreement and Delivery Plan.  The remainder will be disbursed on a quarterly basis, subject to appropriate progress being made.  Expenditure must commence before 31 March 2021 and be completed by 31 March 2022. 

7.       Options

Option 1: Agree to sign the MOU and Funding Agreement; Nominating the Mayor and Chief Executive as the primary point of communication for the purposes of the MoU and reform programme; and

Agree to delegate decisions about the allocation of regional funding to the Mayor, Chair of Infrastructure and Chief Executive.

Advantages

·   Gain access to grant funding for at least $5.72 million of funding for water infrastructure work.

·   Able to participate in central and local government partnership discussions on water service delivery reform.

·   Aligning ourselves to the recommendations of central government and local government organisations such as LGNZ and SOLGM.

·   Council retains the ability to investigate the value to Council and its community of the reform programme and at the same time can decide to withdraw before making a final commitment.

Risks and Disadvantages

·   Will require additional staff resources to manage the process which is a particular challenge given current priorities of developing Activity Management Plans and the Long Term Plan 2021-2031.  This extra cost can be funded from the grant funding.

Option 2: Agree not to sign the MOU and Funding Agreement

Advantages

·    Enable staff to focus on existing priorities.

·    Retain the ability to join the reform process at later phases.

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Unable to access stimulus funding for water infrastructure projects.

·    Lose ability to shape the initial discussions on the development of any regional water reform proposals as they may apply to Nelson.

 

8.       Conclusion

8.1       It is recommended that Council sign the MOU and associated Funding Agreement and Delivery Plan in order to access the grant funding available to support improvements to three waters infrastructure.  This also ensures that Nelson City is at the table to participate in the water service delivery reform discussions and access any future funding available as part of this process.

9.       Next Steps

9.1       If agreed by Council,

9.1.1    The Mayor and Chief Executive will progress with the signing of the MOU prior to the deadline of 31 August 2020.

9.1.2    The Nelson, Tasman, and Marlborough, Mayors, Chairs and Chief Executives will meet to agree how the regional allocation will be split on the basis that it will be along the same lines as the territorial authority allocation.  This will then be communicated to the Minister of Local Government.

9.1.3    Projects will be identified that can be put forward in the Funding Agreement and Delivery Plan for Crown Infrastructure that meet the specifications and can be delivered within the timeframes.

9.1.4    Project implementation will commence by March 2021.

 

Author:           Jessica Bensemann, Nelson Tasman Economic Portfolio Manager

Attachments

Attachment 1:    A2436659 - MOU Three Waters Services Reform

Attachment 2:    A2436658 - Three Waters Stimulus Funding Agreement

Attachment 3:    A2436660 - Three Waters Stimulus Delivery Plan

Attachment 4:    A2436656 - Simpson Grierson advice on the MOU

Attachment 5:    A2436662 - Information on the Three Waters Steering Committee

 

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government

 

Central governments objectives of improvement to the provision of water services is aligned with the four aspects of wellbeing.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The proposed work programme supports the following community outcomes:

·    Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected

·    Our urban and rural environments are people-friendly, well planned and sustainably managed

·    Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs

·    Our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, a regional perspective, and community engagement

·    Our region is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy

3.   Risk

There is some risks that Council will be unable to deliver the projects within the timeframes specified given that existing Annual Plan budgets are set for 2020/21.  Staff resources are currently occupied with AMPs and LTP 2021-2031. 

4.   Financial impact

Agreeing to the MOU will provide additional funding to bring forward potential renewals spending that would need to be allocated under the Long Term Plan 2021-2031.  Therefore potential savings /increased investment of $5.72 in water infrastructure can be made over the next two years.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance in the short term.  Any future decisions regarding the water services reform regarding new entities will need to be consulted with the community.

6.   Climate Impact

One of the reasons why central government is proposing changes to the way the three waters are regulated and monitored are the challenges that climate change will present. As part of the reform process there will be improved information on risk, vulnerability, likely affected people and communities, implementation of the best options and engaging with experts, stakeholders and the Nelson and Tasman communities on the effects of, and adaption to, climate change.

7.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report. However, iwi/ Māori engagement will be an important part of this reform process.

Iwi Chairs and Chief Executives were invited to the workshop held in Nelson in July to discuss the potential reform of the three waters service delivery arrangements.

8.   Delegations

Council has retained responsibility to approve unbudgeted expenditure relating to the areas of responsibility for committees which is not included in the Annual Plan.  

Council has responsibility for agreeing to any Memorandum of Understanding.

 

 


Item 9: Three Waters Programme Investment Package: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 9: Three Waters Programme Investment Package: Attachment 2

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 9: Three Waters Programme Investment Package: Attachment 3

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 9: Three Waters Programme Investment Package: Attachment 4

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 9: Three Waters Programme Investment Package: Attachment 5


PDF Creator


Item 10: Electoral System - Review

 

Council

13 August 2020

 

 

REPORT R18153

Electoral System - Review

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1       To consider whether to change the electoral system for the 2022 and 2025 local government elections.

 

2.       Summary

2.1       The Local Electoral Act 2001 provides for two electoral systems – First Past the Post (FPP) and Single Transferable Vote (STV).  A local authority may resolve to change its electoral system if it does so prior to 12 September two years prior to a triennial election.  A change takes effect for the next two triennial elections and then continues until it is changed again.

2.2       A local authority must also, by 19 September two years prior to a triennial general election, give public notice of the right of five percent of electors to petition for a poll on the electoral system, regardless of whether the system is changed by the local authority. The result of the poll is binding for the following two triennial elections and associated by-elections.

3.       Recommendation

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Electoral System - Review (R18153); and

2.     Decides to continue with the First Past the Post electoral system;

OR

Decides to change to the Single Transferable Vote electoral system; and

3.     Notes that Council will give public notice by 19 September 2020 of the right for Nelson Council electors to petition for a poll on a change to the electoral system.

 

 

 

4.       Background

4.1       Regulation 8 of the Local Electoral Regulations 2001, allows for one of two electoral systems to be used for local body elections.  These two systems are defined in Sections 5A and 5B of the Local Electoral Act 2001 (the Act) as follows:

5A General description of First Past the Post electoral system

For local electoral purposes, the First Past the Post electoral system,—

 (a) in the case of an election, has the following features:

(i)    voters may cast as many votes as there are positions to be filled:

(ii)    where a single position is to be filled, the candidate who receives the highest number of votes is elected:

(iii)   where more than 1 position is to be filled, the candidates equal to the number of positions who receive the highest number of votes are elected

5B General description of Single Transferable Voting electoral system

For local electoral purposes, the Single Transferable Voting electoral system,

(a)      in the case of an election for multi-member vacancies, has the following features:

(i)            voters express a first preference for 1 candidate and may express second and further preferences for other candidates:

(ii)           a quota for election is calculated from the number of votes and positions to be filled:

(iii)          the first preferences are counted and any candidate whose first preference votes equal or exceed the quota is elected:

(iv)          if insufficient candidates are elected under subparagraph (iii), the proportion of an elected candidate’s votes above the quota is redistributed according to voters’ further preferences, and—

(A) candidates who then reach the quota are elected; and

(B) the candidate with the fewest votes is excluded:

(v)           the excluded candidate’s votes are redistributed according to voters’ further preferences:

(vi)          if insufficient candidates are elected under subparagraphs (iv) and (v), the steps described in subparagraphs (iv) and (v) are repeated until all positions are filled:

4.2       Since the Act came into force, Nelson City Council has used FPP as its electoral system. 

Previous Consideration

4.3       Council last considered this matter in August 2014, when it resolved that the 2016 and 2019 triennial local body elections in Nelson City would be conducted using the FPP electoral system. 

Current Situation

4.4       The Council resolution of 28 August 2014, continues in effect until a subsequent resolution is passed or a poll is conducted.

4.5       Section 27 of the Act allows for Council to change its electoral system by resolution. 

4.6       Section 27 also specifies that, where Council resolves to use a particular electoral system, it is to be used for the next two triennial elections, and then continues to be used, unless a subsequent resolution is passed or a poll is conducted.

4.7       Regardless of whether Council wishes to change the system or remain with the existing system, Section 28 of the Act requires that public notice must be given of the electoral system to be used and the right of the public to demand a poll to change that system.  This notice must be given prior to 19 September two years before the next triennial election.  In this case that is 19 September 2020.

4.8       A resolution to change from the current FPP system to the STV system would:

·    need to be made by 12 September 2020 in order to apply to the 2022 elections;

·    apply to the next two triennial elections (2022 and 2025) and any by-elections held after these elections; and

·    be publicly notified and subject to a petition for a poll by five percent of electors.

Conducting a Poll

4.9       A local authority may itself also decide to conduct a poll.

4.10     Section 31 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 allows for Council to resolve that a poll be held on a proposal that a particular electoral system be used.  Such a resolution must be passed prior to 28 February in the year before the next triennial election.  In this case that is 28 February 2021.

4.11     Should a poll be conducted either by choice or by demand, the electoral system decided on must be used for two triennial elections, in accordance with Section 34 of the Act.

District Health Board Elections

4.12     The New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2002 (Schedule 2, clause 9A) requires that elections for District Health Boards (DHBs) be conducted using the STV electoral system.

4.13     The Local Body and District Health Board triennial elections are run concurrently (New Zealand Health and Disability Act 2002, Schedule 2, clause 9). 

4.14     Nelson City Council manages the DHB election for Nelson electors on behalf of Nelson Marlborough District Health Board.

5.       Discussion

5.1       It is widely accepted that there are advantages and disadvantages for both the FPP and the STV electoral systems. 

Proportionality

5.2       Proportionality is a matter for discussion on the subject of electoral systems.  Proportional representation systems are recognised as producing results that reflect the preferences of the broad community of voters. STV is considered to be proportional while FPP is not. 

5.3       Proportional representation systems are accepted to lead to more equitable minority representation.  However, this outcome is itself dependent on a diversity of candidates standing in an election.  No representation system can alter the diversity of representatives elected unless there is a diverse pool of candidates standing for election.

5.4       STV as a proportional representation system may be helpful to Māori, since Māori statistically are a minority within the electorate. The issue of the preferred voting system has not been directly canvassed with Māori or the wider community.

Voter Confusion

5.5       Nelson has been using FPP for the local body elections and STV for Nelson Marlborough District Health Board Elections since 2004.  Consequently, there are two electoral systems on each voting paper – FPP for the election of the Mayor and Councillors and STV for the DHB.  This means that for the two council issues, voters are being asked to tick their preferred candidates, equal to the number of vacancies available. For the DHB issue, voters then consecutively rank their preferred candidates, with the opportunity to rank all candidates, rather than only the number of vacancies.

The statistics for percentages of informal (spoiled papers) for the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board region are:

Informal Votes

Issue

Mayor

Councillors

DHB

Nelson City Council (FPP)

52

0.26%

72

0.37%

824

4.11%

Tasman District Council (FPP)

25

0.13%

44

0.22%

485

2.42%

Marlborough District Council (STV)

18

0.12%

103

0.63%

166

1.00%

5.6       This shows that the number of informal papers for the DHB from the Marlborough District Council (the only council using STV) area is lower than that of both Nelson and Tasman.  However, it is not possible to determine whether this is solely as a result of voter confusion over having to use two different systems on one paper.

          Voting Systems used by Other Councils

5.7       The vast majority of councils use FPP.

5.8       In the local government elections in 2019, the only local government bodies that used STV were:

·    Dunedin City Council

·    Kaipara District Council

·    Kapiti Coast District Council

·    Marlborough District Council

·    New Plymouth District Council (1st time)

·    Porirua City Council

·    Ruapehu District Council (1st time)

·    Tauranga City Council (1st time)

·    Wellington City Council

·    Greater Wellington Regional Council

·    Palmerston North City Council

Future of DHB Elections

5.9       Whilst there is merit in aligning the electoral systems for DHB and Nelson City in order to reduce possible confusion, the future of DHB elections is currently under consideration.

5.10     The future of DHB governance was considered as part of the Health and Disability Review (the Review) conducted by Heather Simpson.  The final report was released in March 2020.

5.11     At the governance level, the Review concluded that the effectiveness of elected over appointed boards was not compelling. The Review recommended that all board members be appointed by the Minister of Health against a transparent set of competencies ranging from financial and governance experience through to tikanga Māori and specific health and disability sector knowledge.

5.12     If this recommendation is adopted, then there will not be a requirement to conduct DHB elections triennially in the future, as board members will be appointed by the Ministry of Health.

5.13     Notwithstanding this, it is anticipated that the DHB election will continue in its current format for 2022, as it is unlikely that a decision from Government on changes to the governance of DHBs will be made in time for this to be implemented.

5.14     Consequently, it is not considered appropriate to change the electoral system simply on the basis of alignment with the DHB election system, as the future of DHB elections remains uncertain in the long term.

          Public Opinion

5.15     There have not been any requests from members of the public for changes to the electoral system.

          Poll

5.16     Should Council choose to conduct a poll or should a poll be demanded by the public, there would be costs associated with this in the order of $110,000.  There is currently no budget to cover this cost.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of each system?

5.17     No electoral system is perfect and there are different views on what is the fairest system.

Advantages of retaining FPP

5.18     Some of the advantages of continuing to use the FPP electoral system are:

·    Voters are used to this system for Nelson Local government elections;

·    It is a simple process;

·    It is easier than STV to understand how votes are counted;

·    Provisional results can be announced earlier, since STV requires all votes to be in and all iterations completed; and

·    It is the most commonly used system currently used in New Zealand, so most familiar to voters.

Advantages of adopting STV Electoral System

5.19     Some of the advantages of moving to the STV system are:

·    The electoral system for local government and DHBs would be the same for the 2022 election, leading to a less confusing voter experience; and

·    STV is a proportional representation system which may provide an outcome that is more representative of the community and potentially a more equitable minority representation.

6.       Options

6.1       Council has three options, as allowed for in the Local Electoral Act 2001:

·    Option 1: Council can resolve to change the electoral system and give notice of that resolution and the public’s right to demand a poll;

·    Option 2: Council can resolve to hold a poll on one of the proposed electoral systems; or

·    Option 3: Council can confirm that the status quo will be retained and give notice of the public’s right to demand a poll. 

Option 1: Change to STV electoral system

Advantages

·   Same electoral system used for both local government and DHB systems in the 2022 elections

·   Reduced risk of confusion by electorate in the 2022 elections

·   As same system used, possible reduction of  spoiled papers

 

Risks and Disadvantages

·   Perceived complexity of the STV system may lead to decreased voter turnout for local government elections

·   Delay in receipt of results

Option 2: Hold a Poll to seek electorate’s view on electoral system

Advantages

·    Voters directly contribute to the decision

 

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Cost for poll is in excess of $110,000

 

Option 3: Confirm that Nelson will continue to use FPP as the electoral system

Advantages

·    Electorate understand simplicity of FPP

·    Familiar system

·    Results are received without delay

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Risk that voters are confused by having two voting systems on one voting document

·    Higher numbers of spoiled papers

 

               

       

 

Author:           Mary Birch, Manager Governance and Support Services

Attachments

Nil

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Considering the electoral system options enables democratic decision-making to continue as efficiently and effectively as possible.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

“Our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, a regional perspective, and community engagement.

Council leaders are strongly connected to our people and mindful of the full range of community views and of the generations that follow.  Residents have the opportunity to participate in major decisions and information is easy to access.”

Considering the electoral systems, whilst giving the community an option to challenge this through a poll, provides our voters with an opportunity to participate in this important decision.

3.   Risk

 This matter is of low risk. It relates to a decision whether to maintain the status quo of the FPP electoral system or change to the STV electoral system.  Both options are allowed for in the Local Electoral Act 2001.

4.   Financial impact

There are no immediate costs associated with considering which electoral system to use.

Additional unbudgeted costs would be incurred if council resolved or the public initiated a poll.  These costs would be in the region of $110,000.

There would be additional costs incurred, if a decision was made to change the electoral system, to educate voters on the STV system.  These would be incorporated into the costs of running the local government election.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance.

It relates to a decision whether to consider a change the electoral system.

It is a requirement of the Local Electoral Act 2001 (sections 27 to 29) that public notice must be given of the right to demand a poll on the electoral system to be used.  It is also required that public notice of any resolution to change the electoral system must be given, including the statement that a poll is required to countermand that decision. 

Therefore, the community will be informed of the outcome of Council’s decision and will be given an opportunity to initiate a poll, which would be binding, should there be an appetite to take a different approach.

 

6.   Climate Impact

This decision will have no impact on the ability of Council to proactively respond to the impacts of climate change now or in the future.

7.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report.

8.   Delegations

This is a decision of Council.

 

 


Item 11: Dedication of Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as Legal Road  - Ngati Rarua St

 

Council

13 August 2020

 

 

REPORT R15924

Dedication of Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as Legal Road  - Ngati Rarua St

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1       To approve a decision to dedicate the Local Purpose Reserve (Road) at Lot 26 DP 487679 (Record of Title 698929), Ngati Rarua Street, Nelson as legal road pursuant to Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977.

2.       Summary

2.1       The dedication of Lot 26 DP 487679 (RT 698929) as legal road is an integral part of the Saxton Creek Upgrade Project and is required in order to connect a new road and bridge across Saxton Creek with the existing end of Ngati Rarua Street to allow access to existing properties and private development.

 

3.       Recommendation

That the Council

1.     Receives this report Dedication of Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as Legal Road  - Ngati Rarua Street (R15924) and its attachments (A2412824 and A2422463); and

2.     Resolves to dedicate the Local Purpose Reserve (Road) at Lot 26 DP 487679 (RT 698929), Ngati Rarua Street, Nelson as legal road pursuant to Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977.

 

4.       Background

4.1       The 639m2 area at the north eastern end of Ngati Rarua Street (Lot 26 DP 487679, RT 698929), Nelson is not legal road. The land is classified as Local Purpose (Road) Reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 and owned by Nelson City Council. It adjoins Ngati Rarua Street. Refer to Attachment 1 (A2422463) - Site location layout.

4.2       Historically, it was common practice to create an area of Local Purpose (Road) Reserve at the termination of a subdivision. This served to restrict access to the legal road at the end of the development, whilst providing for the future extension of the street, at which point the Local Purpose (Road) Reserve would then be dedicated as legal road under section 111 Reserves Act 1977. A Council resolution is required to dedicate the road reserve as road.

4.3       Lot 26 DP 487679, at the end of Ngati Rarua Street, is an example of this practice. Lot 26 was vested in the Council as Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as a result of the 2014 Waimeha Stage 3 subdivision. This subdivision, which provided for 25 residential allotments, described Lot 26 as a lot that may contain future road linkage to land to the north–east. This is shown in Attachment 2 (A2412824) - Vesting and Dedication Land Plan.

4.4       Attachment 2 shows the proposed access road through Lot 26 to the bridge over Saxton Creek (which is currently under construction). This road will provide access to not only the proposed developments on the east side of Saxton Creek, but also to the land (and potential future development) to the area on the west side of the creek as shown on Attachment 1. 

4.5       The dedication of Lot 26 DP 487679 (RT 698929) as legal road is required for the extension of Ngati Rarua Street and construction of a new bridge across Saxton Creek. This work is incidental to the work being undertaken to upgrade the flood capacity of Saxton Creek from Champion Road to the sea. The land is required for road to link the existing end of Ngati Rarua Street with land the Council has agreed to acquire for drainage and road from private landowners. Work to construct the road over the land is currently being undertaken by Council’s contractors.

4.6       The upgrade of Saxton Creek is part of a wider project to upgrade the channel from Champion Road to the sea following the devastation caused by the 2013 extreme rainfall event that hit Nelson. Negotiations with various land owners commenced in 2013. Council is committed to this project having already spent $5.4M to date on stages 1 and 2 with work on Stage 3 ($4.6M) now again underway following the lifting of the COVID-19 lockdown. Stage 4 (Main Road Stoke to the sea) is also underway with officers finalising negotiations and detailed design, with work expected to commence in 2021/22.    

4.7       Resource consents have been granted for the construction of Stage 3 of the Saxton Creek Upgrade Works, which will be completed in three phases (being 3A, 3B and 3C) in recognition of the different land ownerships, to ensure access is maintained for residents and to ensure existing stormwater infrastructure is not compromised.

4.8       Stage 3A of the upgrade works includes the construction of a new bridge to provide access to 3A-D and 3F Hill Street, the extension of Ngati Rarua Street, and the acquisition under the Public Works Act 1981 (PWA) of part of the driveways to 3A-D and 3F Hill Street. Once constructed, the new bridge and the extension of Ngati Rarua Street will provide access to 3A-D and 3F Hill Street (inclusive of the subdivision under construction currently) from the existing end of Ngati Rarua Street.

5.       Discussion

5.1       The dedication of Lot 26 DP 487679 (RT 698929) as legal road along with construction of the new road and a bridge is consistent with previously granted resource consents RM175439, RM175440, RM175441, RM195290 and RM195299 and the multiple interlocking agreements (contracts) that Council has with the relevant land owners.

          Issues

5.2       No issues are anticipated as Lot 26 DP 487679 (RT 698929) is already vested in Council as Local Purpose Reserve (Road) subject to the Reserves Act 1977. This provides for the future extension of Ngati Rarua Street as a road if Council makes a resolution to dedicate the land as road. The proposed bridge construction has already been authorised by resource consent.

          Financial Considerations

5.3       The cost to undertake this dedication is estimated at $5,000 and will be charged to the Saxton Creek upgrade project. 

         Legal Considerations

5.4       The Council has the power to dedicate road reserve as legal road under the Reserves Act 1977, Section 111(1):

 (1)  Where any land is vested in the Crown or in any local authority for the purposes of a road reserve and the land is required for the purposes of a road, the land may be dedicated as a road by notice under the hand of the Minister or, as the case may be, by resolution of the local authority, and lodged with the Registrar-General of Land.

5.5       The Council has entered into agreements with 8 landowners to acquire land for drainage and road that is needed for Stage 3 of the Saxton Creek upgrade works between Saxton Field and Ngati Rarua Street. The works are being carried out to provide flood protection to southern Nelson. Negotiations with the landowners for the stages to allow all works to proceed commenced in 2013 and the agreements to acquire land went unconditional in January 2020.

5.6            Under some of the land acquisition agreements the Council is required to construct the extension of Ngati Rarua Street and a new bridge over Saxton Creek. In those agreements, the landowner is not required to transfer land to the Council for drainage and road unless the full extension of Ngati Rarua Street is classified legal road. If the Council does not dedicate the land as legal road it would delay the acquisition of land needed for the Saxton Creek upgrade works.

6.       Options

6.1       The options are to either to dedicate the Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as legal road (preferred option) or to not dedicate the Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as legal road. The advantages and disadvantage of both options are summarised below.

 

Option 1: Dedicate the Local Purpose (Road) Reserve at Lot 26 DP 487679 (RT 698929) as legal road under Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977.

Advantages

·    The land is dedicated as road, consistent with its land use.

·    Dedication as legal road enables the council to proceed with acquiring land required for the Saxton Creek Upgrade works under some of the land acquisition agreements.

·      Residents and public will have legal access across Saxton Creek, using the extended road, as constructed.

·      The area of land maintained through the road maintenance budget becomes road and is thus included as a roading asset for Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency funding purposes.

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Survey and legal costs to the Council in the order of $5,000 but this can be catered for within existing budgets. 

Option 2: Not dedicate the Local Purpose (Road) Reserve at Lot 26 DP 487679 (RT 698929) as legal road under Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977.

Advantages

·    None

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Council loses its right to enforce the mechanism in some of the land acquisition agreements to acquire land vital to the completion of the Saxton Creek Project.

·    Delay to the Saxton Creek Project.

·    Will not allow legal access from the existing end of Ngati Rarua Street across the Creek to proposed developments and will result in the potential delay of these projects.

·    The newly constructed road would remain an anomalous piece of incorrectly classified road reserve, used as if it were legal road, but not formally classified as legal road.

7.       Conclusion

7.1       Officers support Option One. This is best practice for the Council as it meets Council’s intention to change the status of land from Road Reserve to Road as land development occurs.

 

Author:           Jasper Snyder, Team Leader Capital Projects

Attachments

Attachment 1:    A2422463 - Site location layout plan

Attachment 2:    A2412824 - Vesting and Dedication Land Plan

 

 


 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The decision meets Council’s intention to change the status of land from Road Reserve to Road as land development occurs and facilitates public access rights over the newly constructed works/bridge.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Decision supports the community outcome “Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs.”

3.   Risk

The risk is very low risk as dedicating Road Reserve as Road is a standard practice (as provided for under Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977).

4.   Financial impact

Costs are minimal and within the Saxton Creek Upgrade Project budget.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance according to the Significance and Engagement Policy because it is a standard Local Body transaction, following the process set out under Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977. Therefore, no engagement is necessary.

6.   Climate Impact

Current and future climate change impacts have been considered in the preparation of this report. 3A-D and 3F Hill Street are currently accessed via Hill Street North and a long driveway adjacent to Saxton Creek. The proposed access via Ngati Rarua Street will be shorter and more direct and thus, reduce carbon emissions.

7.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report.

8.   Delegations

  Council has the power to resolve that road reserve be dedicated as legal road under Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977.

 

 


Item 11: Dedication of Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as Legal Road  - Ngati Rarua St: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


Item 11: Dedication of Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as Legal Road  - Ngati Rarua St: Attachment 2

PDF Creator